HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PUBLICATIONS 

Harvard  Historical  Monographs 

No.  ± 


THE  VETO  POWER 

ITS  ORIGIN,  DEVELOPMENT  AND  FUNCTION  IN  THE 

GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

(1789-1889) 


BY 

EDWARD   CAMPBELL   MASON,   A.B. 

INSTRUCTOR  IN  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


EDITED   BY 

ALBERT  BUSHNELL   HART,   PH.D. 

ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  OF  HISTORY 


BOSTON,   U.S.A. 

PUBLISHED   BY   GINN   &  COMPANY 
1891 


2- 


COPYRIGHT,  1890,  BY 

THE  PRESIDENT  AND  FELLOWS  OF  HARVARD  COLLEGE. 


SECOND    EDITION. 


PKESSWORK  BY  JOHN  WILSON  AND  SON, 
UNIVERSITY  PRESS. 


EDITOR'S PREFACE. 


AMONG  the  many  subjects  in  the  constitutional  development  of 
the  United  States  on  which  no  formal  treatise  has  been  written, 
none  seems  more  to  deserve  the  attention  of  a  scholar  than  that 
chosen  by  Mr.  Mason  and  here  presented  as  the  first  number  of 
the  Harvard  Historical  Monographs.  The  veto  power  is  the  most 
important  of  the  institutions  connecting  the  national  executive 
with  the  legislature ;  the  provision  for  a  revision  by  an  enlarged 
majority  of  the  legislature  is  original,  to  the  United  States ;  the 
vetoes  have  appertained  to  some  of  the  most  interesting  episodes 
of  American  history  ;  the  power  is  in  frequent  exercise,  yet  has  of 
late  been  somewhat  disputed. 

In  a  work  of  this  kind,  based  on  records  sometimes  defective 
and  usually  badly  indexed,  perfection  is  almost  impossible.  The 
greatest  pains  have,  however,  been  taken  to  make  the  list  of  vetoes 
complete.  In  the  Report  made  to  the  Senate  in  1886,  by  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Printing,  there  are  printed,  with  some  other 
matter,  two  hundred  and  thirty-seven  veto  messages,  which  were 
supposed  by  the  Committee  to  include  all  that  had  ever  been  ren- 
dered. Mr.  Mason  has  discovered  ten  additional  vetoes,  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  appendix  A  ;  and  he  has  added  references  to 
one  hundred  and  eighty-six  messages  submitted  since  the  date  of 
the  report. 

The  Editor's  function  has  been  that  of  advice,  suggestion,  and 
revision ;  the  labor  of  preparation  is  entirely  Mr.  Mason's  own. 
All  important  points  of  opinion  have  been  discussed  between  us, 
but  in  every  case  Mr.  Mason  has  stated  his  own  views  and  assumes 
all  responsibility  for  them.  Although  the  work  deals  with  politi- 
cal subjects,  many  of  which  are  still  subjects  of  debate,  both 

[3] 


4  Veto  Power:  —  Editors  Preface. 

Editor  and  Author  have  endeavored  to  avoid  political  bias  ;  the 
vetoes  are  condemned  or  approved  upon  what  seem  to  us  sound 
principles  of  constitutional  law  and  political  expediency,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  attitude  of  present  parties.  The  effort  has  been  made 
in  the  notes  and  appendices  to  furnish  all  the  apparatus  necessary 
for  following  out  and  testing  the  Author's  conclusions,  and  for  pur- 
suing the  subject  further. 

It  had  been  intended  to  add  a  chapter  on  the  workings  of  the 
veto  in  the  States,  and  another  on  the  veto  power  in  modern 
constitutions.  The  discussion  of  the  veto  in  the  national  system 
of  government  in  the  United  States  has  required  more  space  than 
had  been  anticipated :  the  two  additional  chapters  have  therefore 
been  omitted.  But,  for  purposes  of  comparison,  there  has  been 
introduced  as  an  appendix  a  tabulation  of  the  provisions  of  state 
constitutions.  In  another  appendix  will  be  found  a  list  of  the 
vetoes  of  the  President  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America. 
The  material  for  it  has  been  kindly  furnished  for  this  Monograph 
by  Mr.  John  Osborne  Sumner,  a  member  of  the  Graduate  Depart- 
ment, from  the  manuscript  Journals  of  the  Confederate  Congress, 
which  he  has  been  the  first  historical  scholar  to  study. 

I  desire  also  to  express  my  obligation  to  Dr.  Charles  Gross, 
of  Harvard  University,  for  his  careful  revision  of  the  proofs ;  and 
to  Professor  J.  B.  Thayer,  of  the  Harvard  Law  School,  for  helpful 

suggestions. 

ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART. 
CAMBRIDGE,  April  12,  1890. 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE. 


THE  object  of  the  present  Monograph  is,  to  trace  the  develop- 
ment and  operation  of  the  veto  power  in  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  The  work  is  almost  wholly  the  result  of  an 
examination  of  the  sources.  Indeed  such  a  course  was  almost  a 
necessity  since  very  little  has  been  written  upon  the  subject. 
The  basis  of  the  study  is  a  list  of  the  Presidential  vetoes,  compiled 
from  the  records  of  Congress,  and  covering  the  period  from  the 
foundation  of  the  present  form  of  government  in  1789,  to  the 
end  of  President  Cleveland's  administration,  March  4,  1889. 

For  convenience  of  comparison,  the  vetoes  have  been  classified 
according  to  subject ;  and  to  the  discussion  of  these  classes  the 
greater  part  of  the  work  is  devoted.  It  has,  however,  seemed 
essential  in  a  full  treatment  of  the  subject  to  prefix  a  brief  account 
of  the  origin  in  English  and  Colonial  precedent  of  that  particular 
form  of  the  veto  power  which  is  found  in  the  United  States :  and 
to  add  a  chapter  on  the  constitutional  points  which  have  arisen 
concerning  the  operation  of  the  veto  power;  and  another  on  the 
gradual  development  of  the  power  during  the  century  of  the 
national  government. 

*The  preparation  of  the  thesis  began  in  the  fall  of  1887,  in  one 
of  the  Historical  Research  Courses  in  Harvard  University,  and  has 
been  continued  most  of  the  time  since,  as  undergraduate  and  grad- 
uate work,  in  connection  with  the  University,  under  the  direction 
of  Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart,  the  editor  of  the  Monograph. 
I  desire  to  express  my  obligation  to  Dr.  William  Everett,  of 
Quincy,  Mass.,  for  information  in  regard  to  the  decline  of  the 
veto  in  England  ;  and  to  Mr.  Herman  V.  Ames,  a  member  of 
the  Graduate  Department  of  Harvard  College,  who  has  kindly 

[5] 


6  Veto  Power:  —  Authors  Preface. 

furnished  me  with  a  list  of  proposed  amendments  which  concern 
the  veto  power.  The  authorities  used  will  be  found  enumerated 
in  Appendix  C.  As  the  work  is  based  upon  the  voluminous 
Government  Records,  special  pains  have  been  taken  to  verify 
every  reference,  both  in  the  text  and  appendix.  Nevertheless, 
errors  may  have  crept  in,  owing  either  to  errors  in  the  originals 
or  to  inadvertence.  I  shall  be  happy  to  acknowledge  the  cor- 
rection of  such  mistakes  as  may  be  discovered.  The  deductions 
have  been  made  after  long  and  careful  thought ;  but  are  subject 
to  the  errors  into  which  a  person  not  directly  connected  with 
the  administration  of  affairs  is  always  liable  to  fall.  Here  again, 
corrections  and  criticisms  will  be  gladly  received. 

The  results  of  the  study  of  this  somewhat  neglected  portion  of 
American  constitutional  history  are  given  to  the  public  in  the  hope 
that  they  may  aid  in  the  further  investigation  both  of  the  question 
here  considered  and  of  other  related  and  unsolved  problems  in 
United  States  history  and  law. 

EDWARD  CAMPBELL   MASON. 
CAMBRIDGE,  April  12,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

GENESIS   OF  THE    VETO  POWER. 

\  _  j 

§    I.   Origin  of  the  Veto  Power. ^^ ^ — -^-rrrrrT. .' n 

§    2.    Legislative  Power  among  the  Teutonic  Tribes 1 1 

§    3.    Legislative  Power  in  England  down  to  the  Appearance  of  the  Royal  Veto. . .  12 
§    4.    Extension  of  Royal  Legislative  Power :    Proclamation,  Suspension,  and  Dis- 
pensation   13 

§    5.   Limitations  on  Royal  Legislative  Power;   the  Veto. 14 

§    6.    Disappearance  of  the  Veto  in  England 15 

§    7.   The  Veto  Power  in  the  American  Colonies 

§    8.   The  Veto  Power  in  the  First  State  Constitutions 18 

§    9.   The  Veto  Power  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation 19 

§  10.   The  Veto  Power  in  the  Federal  Convention 20 

§  1 1.  The  Veto  Clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. .  „ 22 

CHAPTER  II. 

VETOES  AFFECTING    THE  FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

§  1 2.   Executive  Methods  of  treating  a  Bill . . .  „ .  24 

§  13.    Classification  of  the  Vetoes „ 25 

§  14.   Vetoes  affecting  the  Form  of  the  National  Legislature 25 

§  15.    Vetoes  affecting  the  Form  of  the  National  Judiciary 27 

§  1 6.   General  Effect  of  Vetoes  considered  in  this  Chapter „ 30 

CHAPTER  III. 

VETOES  AFFECTING    THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  POWERS 
OF  GOVERNMENT. 

§  17.   Classification  of  Vetoes  in  this  Chapter 31 

§  1 8.   Executive  Claims  to  Legislative  Power  supported  by  the  Veto 32 

§  19.   The  Bank  Veto 32 

§  20.   Removal  of  the  Deposits 33 

§  21.   Vetoes  for  the  Protection  of  the  Executive  from  Legislative  Encroachment. .  35 

§  22.    Power  over  Foreign  Affairs :  the  Treaty  Power 36 

§  23.   Establishment  of  Consular  and  Diplomatic  Offices 37 

§  24.   Diplomatic  Intercourse 39 

[7] 


8  Veto  Power. 

§  25.   The  Power  of  Appointment 39 

§  26.    Requiring  Names  of  Candidates  for  Appointment 40 

§  37.    Requiring  Papers  relative  to  Removals  from  Office 41 

§  28.   The  Tenure  of  Office  Act 42 

§  29.   The  Fitz-John  Porter  Bill 43 

§  30.    Protest  for  the  Protection  of  the  President's  War  Power 44 

§  31.    Protest  and  Veto  for  the  Protection  of  the  President's  Personal  Rights 

under  the  Constitution 45 

§  32.   Covode  Investigation 45 

§  33.   The  President's  Salary 45 

§  34.   Use  of  the  -Veto  in  Controversies  arising  out  of  the  Civil  War 46 

§  35.    Riders  on  Appropriation  Bills 47 

§  36.   General  Effect  of  the  Vetoes  for  the  Protection  of  the  Executive .  49 


CHAPTER   IV. 

VETOES  AFFECTING    THE  EXERCISE    OF   THE  POWERS   OF 
GOVERNMENT. 

§  37.  Classification. 52 

§  38.    Relation  of  the  National  Government  to  Individuals 52 

§  39-   Question  of  the  Establishment  of  Religion 53 

§  40.   Naturalization 54 

§  41.   The  Indians „ 54 

§  42.   The  Negro 57 

§  43.   The  Chinese 58 

§  44.    General  Remarks  on  the  Power  over  Individuals 59 

§  45.   Territorial  Powers ;   Public  Land 59 

§  46.    Early  Land  Vetoes , 60 

§  47.   Public  Lands  and  the  Constitution;   Land  Grants 61 

§  48.    Later  Land  Vetoes  on  Grounds  of  Expediency 64 

§  49.    Effect  of  the  Public  Land  Vetoes 66 

§  50.   Admission  of  States 67 

§  51.  Criticism  of  the  Colorado  and  Nebraska  Vetoes 68 

§  52.    Financial  Powers 69 

§  53.   The  Tariff 69 

§  54.    Refunding  the  Direct  Tax 72 

§  55.   Bank  Charter  Vetoes 74 

§  56.   Madison's  Bank  Veto 74 

§  57.   Jackson's  Bank  Veto 74 

§  58.   Tyler's  Bank  Veto 76 

§  59.   Criticism  of  Bank  Vetoes 78 

§  60.   Currency  and  Coinage 7& 

§  61.    Inflation  Bill 80 

§  62.   The  Bland  Silver  Bill 81 

§  63.    Expenditure  of  Public  Money 82 

§  64.   French  Spoliation  Claims 83 

§  65.    Relief  Bills 85 

§  66.   Bills  defrauding  the  Government  of  Money 85 


Contents.  9 

§  67.   Bills  relieving  Deserters  from  the  Army 86 

§  68.    Bills  relieving  former  Army  Officers  of  Disability 86 

§  69.    Bills  carelessly  drawn 86 

§  70.    Miscellaneous  Relief  Bills 87 

§  71.    Pension  Vetoes 87 

§  72.   Bills  conveying  no  Benefit 88 

§  73.   Unnecessary  Increase  of  Pensions 88 

§  74.   Injuries  not  received  "  in  the  Line  of  Duty  " 88 

§  75.    Dependent  Relatives :  Dependency  not  proved 88 

§  76.    Miscellaneous  Pension  Bills ~. 88 

§  77.   Dependent  Pension  Bill .' 89 

§  78.   President  Cleveland's  Pension  Policy 90 

§  79.   Expediency  of  the  Pension  Vetoes 91 

§  80.   Constitutionality  of  the  Pension  Vetoes 92 

§  81.    Summary  of  the  Question  of  Pension  Vetoes 93 

§  82    Commercial  Powers 93 

§  83.   Internal  Improvements 94 

§  84.    Madison's  Veto  of  a  General  Bill 94 

§  85.    Monroe's  Cumberland  Road  Veto.     Constitutionality  of  Improve- 
ments   - 95 

§  86.   Jackson's  Vetoes.     Jurisdiction  and  Local  Character 96 

§  87.  Tyler's  Vetoes.     Improvement  of  Water- Ways 99 

§  88.    Polk's  Vetoes.     Local  Improvements 100 

§  89.   Pierce's  Vetoes.     Implied  Powers 101 

§  90.    Buchanan's  Vetoes.     Constitutional  Grounds 103 

§  91.   Grant's  Veto  and  Refusal  to  carry  out  a  Bill 103 

§  92.   Arthur's  Veto.     Local  Objects 104 

§  93.    Public  Buildings 105 

§  94.    General  View  of  Internal  Improvement  Vetoes 106 

§  95.    Measures  based  on  the  General  Welfare  Clause 107 

§  96.   Texas  Seed  Bill 107 

§  97.   War  Powers 108 

§  98.   General  Effect  of  the  Veto  on  the  Exercise  of  the  Powers  of  Government 109 


CONSTITUTIONAL  PROCEDURE  AS   TO   VETOES. 


§  99.   The  Action  of  the  President 1 1 1 

§  100.   Is  the  Exercise  of  the  Veto  a  Legislative  Power? 112 

§  101.   Constitutionality  of  Pocket  Vetoes.     The  Legal  Ten  Days 113 

»     §  102.    May  a  Bill  be  vetoed  without  stating  Reasons? 1 14 

§  103.    May  a  Bill  be  signed  after  the  Adjournment  of  Congress? 115 

§  104.    May  a  President  refuse  to  carry  out  an  Act  ? 1 16 

§  105.   The  President's  Right  of  Protest 117 

§  1 06.   Is  the  Signature  of  the  President  Essential  to  Constitutional  Amend- 
ments ? 117 

§  107.  The  Action  of  Congress 1 18 

§  108.   Has  the  Executive  a  Right  to  recall  a  Veto? 1 18 


io  Veto  Power. 

§  109.  What  is  a  Two-thirds  Majority? 119 

§  I  io.  Has  the  Speaker  a  Right  to  vote  on  Reconsideration? 120 

§m.  Second  Reconsideration  of  a  Veto 120 

§  1 12.  Failure  to  enter  the  Veto  Message  in  the  Journal 122 

§  1 13.  Frequent  Neglect  of  Reconsideration 122 

§  1 14.   Comparative  Unimportance  of  Constitutional  Details 123 


POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE    VETO  POWER. 

§  115.   Reasons  for  Chronological  Treatment 124 

§  1 16.   Statistics  of  Vetoes 124 

§  1 1 7.    Personal  Element  in  the  Veto 126 

§  1 18.   Presidents  who  vetoed  No  Bills 126 

§  119.    Presidents  who  vetoed  Few  Bills 126 

§  120.    Presidents  who  vetoed  Many  Bills 126 

§  121.    Reasons  expressed  for  Vetoes 129 

§  122.  The  Constitution  and  Expediency 129 

§  123.   Cause  of  the  Increasing  Use  of  Expediency  as  a  Reason  for  Vetoes. .  130 

§  124.   Effect  of  the  Veto  on  Parties 131 

§  125.   Effect  of  the  Veto  on  Legislation 132 

§  126.   Prevention  of  Unwise  Measures 133 

§  127.   Prevention  of  Unwise  Lines  of  Policy 133 

§  128.   Indirect  Influence  of  the  Veto  on  Legislation 134 

§  129.   Vetoes  which  have  failed  of  their  Object 134 

§  130.   Popular  Objections  to  the  Veto 135 

§  131.    Proposed  Constitutional  Amendments 136 

§  132.   Attempts  to  destroy  the  Power 136 

§  133.   Attempts  to  diminish  the  Power 136 

§  134.   Attempts  to  enlarge  the  Power 137 

§  135.  The  Veto  Power  in  1789  and  in  1889 138 

APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX   A. 

Chronological  List  of  Presidential  Vetoes  with  References  (1789-1889) 141 

APPENDIX  B. 

Chronological  List  of  Presidential  Protests  (1789-1889) 208 

APPENDIX  C. 

Chronological  List  of  Vetoes  sent  to  the  Confederate  Congress  (1861-1865) 210 

APPENDIX  D. 

Legislative  Activity  of  the  Presidents  (1789-1889) 214 

APPENDIX  E. 

Provisions  of  State  Constitutions  relative  to  the  Veto •> 215 

APPENDIX   F. 

Bibliography  of  the  Veto  Power 220 


•      CHAPTER   I. 

GENESIS   OF  THE    VETO  POWER. 

§    I.  Origin  of  the  veto  power. 

§    2.  Legislative  power  among  the  Teutonic  tribes. 

§    3.  Legislative  power  in  England  down  to  the  appearance  of  the  royal  veto. 

§    4.  Extension  of  royal  legislative  power :  proclamation,  suspension,  dispensation. 

§    5.  Limitations  on  royal  legislative  power :  the  veto. 

§    6.  Disappearance  of  the  veto  in  England. 

§    7.  The  veto  power  in  the  American  Colonies. 

§    8.  The  veto  power  in  the  first  State  constitutions. 

§    9.  The  veto  power  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 

§  10.  The  veto  power  in  the  Federal  Convention. 

§  II.  The  veto  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

§  i.  Origin  of  the  veto  power. — The  veto  power  which  to-day 
seems  purely  a  powerjLo  prevent  the  passage  of  p^pos^  lawg, 
originated  as  a  part  of  the  power  to  makejthem.  This  paradox  is 
explained  by  the  fact  that  legislation' includes  the  right  of  the 
legislating  body  either  to  accept  or  to  reject  the  propositions 
which  it  discusses.  It  has  a  positive  and  a  negative  function,  and 
.this  latter  function  is  in  its  nature  a  power  to  veto  or  deny. 
Among  our  German  political  ancestors  both  legislative  functions 
were  exercised  by  the  same  authority.  Since  the  time  of  the 
Teutonic  tribes  a  change  has  gradually  been  taking  place,  and  now 
in  the  United  States  two  authorities  are  interested  in  the  making 
of  laws  :  Congress,  which,  like  its  early  prototype,  can  either  accept 
or  reject  proposed  legislation ;  and  the  President,  who  is  entirely 
'rFpnra^  f™m  Congress,  but  has  a  qualified  power  of  rejection 
which  is  similar  to  the  negative  power  ofjCpngress. 

The  steps  by  which  the  change  has  taken  place  are  clearly  to 
be  seen  in  English  history. 

§  2.  Legislative  power  among  the  Teutonic  tribes.  —  In  the 
Germany  of  Tacitus  legislative  power  was  lodged  with  the  free- 
men. These  men,  who  formed  a  majority  of  the  tribe,  met  in 
assemblies  and  transacted  in  a  rude  way  the  business  of  the  tribe.1 

1  Freeman,  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  12. 


1 3  Veto  Power:  —  Genesis*  [Ch.  i 

We  find  among  these  peoples  principes  or  nobles,  and  in  some  cases 
even  kings,  who  were  chosen  by  popular  vote,  and  who  had  full 
authority  in  minor  matters.1  But  the  weightier  affairs  of  state 
could  be  settled  only  by  the  assembly,  although  even  in  these  cases 
the  questions  were  prepared  by  the  principes  for  the  action  of  the 
freemen.2  The  people,  therefore,  really  made  their  own  laws,  yet 
we  see  the  germs  of  that  kingly  influence  on  legislation  which  in 
early  English  history  became  well-nigh  supreme. 

§  3.  Legislative  power  in  England  down  to  the  appearance  of 
the  royal  veto. — When  the  Teutonic  tribes  conquered  England, 
they  brought  with  them  their  political  constitution  and  set  it  up 
in  the  conquered  land,  practically  unchanged.  The  people  were 
still  sovereign.  Little  by  little,  however,  the  King  acquired  power, 
and  always  at  the  expense  of  popular  authority.  In  the  first  place, 
as  the  English  kingdom  spread  further  and  further  out  over  the 
island,  the  King,  from  the  very  fact  of  this  growth,  became  more 
and  more  powerful.3  Again,  there  were  certain  persons  in  the 
nation  to  whom  the  King  sustained  the  relation  of  personal  lord. 
As  the  King  became  a  more  powerful  personage,  it  of  course  be- 
came more  of  an  honor  to  be  the  King's  servant  or  Thegn,4  and  in 
a  comparatively  short  time  all  the  chief  men  in  the  nation1  became 
in  this  way  the  personal  supporters  of  the  King.  His  position  was 
thus  very  materially  strengthened. 

The  growing  power  of  the  King  was  nowhere  more  clearly  seen 
than  in  the  national  council,  the  Witenagemot.  At  first,  just  as  in 
the  assemblies  among  the  Teutonic  tribes,  all  the  freemen  -of  the 
kingdom  attended.5  As  the  English  extended  their  territory,  per- 
sonal presence  became  practically  an  impossibility  for  the  great 
majority  of  freemen,  and,  in  the  end,  only  the  chief  men  of  the 
nation,  many  of  whom  were  the  "  King's  men,"  attended  these 
meetings.6  Thus  the  legislative  power  which  had  been  exercised 
formerly  by  the  whole  people  came  to  be  exercised  by  a  compara- 
tively small  number  of  men  who  were  summoned  and  practically 
controlled  by  the  King. 

The  Norman  Conquest  strengthened  the  legislative  power  of 

1  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  4. 

2  Tacitus,  De  Moribus  Germanise,  c.  7-13. 

8  Freeman,  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  36. 
*  Ibid.,  50.  6  Ibid.,  60. 

6  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  11. 


§§2-4-]         Legislative  Power  in  Germany  and  England.  13 

the  kings  ;  and  consequently  the  duties  of  Parliament  became  more 
than  ever  a  mere  matter  of  form.  Parliament  held  the  shadow  of 
power,  while  the  King  enjoyed  the  substance.1  Supremacy  over 
Parliament  was  retained  by  the  King  well  down  to  the  reign  of 
Edward  III ;  and  during  this  period,  the  subjects  of  legislation  as 
Well  as  the  mode  of  dealing  with  them  rested  with  the  royal  will. 
In  many  cases  a  mere  proclamation  by  the  Sovereign  created  law.2 
Generally,  however,  the  matter  was  laid  before  the  council,  but 
even  then  the  King's  authority  was  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
action  of  the  council.3 

§  4.  Extension  of  royal  legislative  power :  proclamation,  sus- 
pension, and  dispensation.  —  There  were  three  outgrowths  of  royal 
legislative  power  which  lasted  long  after  the  surrender  of  the ,  un- 
limited right  to  make  laws,  but  which  should  be  considered  at 
this  point.  They  were :  the  power  of  creating  substantive  laws 
by  royal  nroclamation ;  the  power  of  suspension ;  and  the  power 
of  dispensation. 

From  early  times  it  had  been  customary  for  the  kings  of  Eng- 
land to  issue  proclamations  for  the  enforcement  of  law.  The 
custom  grew  until  at  last  the  King  commenced  to  issue  proclama- 
tions, not  for  the  enforcement,  but  for  the  creation  of  law.  As  a 
rule,  this  power  was  exercised  only  when  Parliament  was  not  in 
session,  and  when  some  urgent  necessity  called  for  immediate 
legislation.  The  propriety  of  the  King's  action  in  such  cases  was 
generally  recognized  and  acquiesced  in.4  As  the  country  grew,  the 
royal  proclamations  became  more  frequent  and  their  necessity  less 
evident ;  consequently  they  encountered  a  great  deal  of  opposition 
from  the  people.  In  1610,  when  James  I  and  Parliament  were 
quarrelling,  the  Commons  issued  an  address  to  the  Crown,  com- 
plaining of  the  frequency  of  proclamations.5  The  King  consulted 
the  judges  in  reference  to  the  matter,  and  they  declared  against 
proclamations  creating  law.  The  practice  was  not  ended  by  this 
decision,  however ;  and  during  the  time  of  Charles  I  proclamations 
were  more  frequent  than  ever.6  The  question  was  not  finally  set- 
tled until  1766,  when  an  act  of  Parliament7  recognized  the  illegal- 
ity of  proclamations  creating  law. 

1  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  17-35. 

2  Hearn,  Government  of  England,  37. 

8  Ibid.,  52,  quoting  Bracton  in  support  of  the  statement. 

*  Ibid.,  38.  5  State  Trials,  II,  519. 

6  Hearn,  Government  of  England,  40.  7  7  George  III,  c.  7. 


14  Veto  Power: — Genesis.  [Ch.  i. 

Laws  passed  by  Parliament  sometimes  worked  in  unexpected 
ways  which  caused  great  hardship,  and  as  the  hardship  generally 
became  apparent  after  Parliament  had  been  dissolved,  it  gradually 
became  the  custom  for  the  King  to  suspend  the  troublesome  act 
until  it  could  be  reconsidered.1  This  was  the  suspending  power. 

Closely  connected  with  the  power  just  considered,  was  the  dis- 
pensing power  of  the  Crown,  by  the  exercise  of  which  the  King 
could  exempt  particular  persons  from  the  operation  of  a  law.  Like 
the  suspending  power,  it  was  in  its  exercise  a  partial  repeal  of  law.2 

Both  the  power  of  dispensation  and  the  power  of  suspension 
were  acquiesced  in  by  the  people  for  a  considerable  time.  Their 
disappearance,  like  the  disappearance  of  many  of  the  other  powers 
of  the  Crown,  dates  from  the  overthrow  of  the  Stuarts.  The  last 
two  kings  of  this  dynasty,  in  their  attempts  to  remove  the  disabili- 
ties of  Catholics  and  Dissenters,  freely  used  the  powers  which  we 
are  considering.  This  action  roused  their  opponents  to  an  unrea- 
sonable pitch,3  and  the  powers  were  taken  away  from  the  Crown  in 
the  first  year  after  the  Revolution  of  i688.4  The  three  incidents 
which  we  have  just  been  considering,  well  illustrate  the  extensive 
legislative  power  of  the  early  English  kings.  They  show  that  not 
only  was  the  royal  authority  necessary  for  the  enactments  by  Par- 
liament, but  that  the  Sovereign,  wholly  without  consent  of  Parlia- 
ment, could  both  make  and  repeal  laws. 

§  5.  Limitations  on  royal  legislative  power ;  the  veto.  —  As 
has  already  been  said,  the  period  during  which  the  kings  of  Eng- 
land had  their  greatest  control  of  legislation  lasted  until  about 
the  time  of  Edward  III.  Then  the  House  of  Commons  began 
to  have  a  distinct  influence  in  the  making  of  laws,  and  the  royal 
legislative  power  took  on  a  new  and  less  important  character. 
In  this  period,  as  before,  the  King  was  the  real  power  in  legislation  ; 
but  hitherto  he  had  acted  as  prompted  by  his  own  will,  while  now 
he  makes  use  of  his  legislative  power  only  when  requested  by  the 
Parliament  so  to  do.  The  usual  method  of  procedure  was  as  fol- 
lows. The  Commons  petitioned  the  King  to  make  a  law  on  a 
given  subject.  The  King  received  the  petition  and  made  such 
a  law  as  he  thought  fit.5  When  once  the  power  was  set  in  motion, 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  English  Constitutional  History,  313.  2  Ibid.,  313. 

8  Hallam,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,  62. 

*  i  William  and  Mary,  Sess.  2,  c.  2,  ist  Sec.  Bill  of  Rights. 

6  Hearn,  Government  of  England,  55. 


§§4-6.]         Limitations  of  the  Royal  Legislative  Power.  15 

the  King  could  exercise  it  much  as  in  former  days,  when  he  him- 
self took  the  initiative  in  legislation.  The  sovereigns  were  not 
slow  to  take  away  the  effect  of  the  privilege  .of  the  Commons, 
by  granting  laws  which  were  in  no  sense  an  answer  to  the 
petitions  upon  which  they  were  based.  The  practice  was  of  course 
exceedingly  distasteful  to  the  Commons,  and  they  objected  strenu- 
ously, but  to  no  purpose ;  for  the  King  continued  to  ignore  the 
petitions.  Finally  the  Commons  drew  up  a  petition  in  the  precise 
form  of  an  Act  of  Parliament.  The  Crown  assented  to  it  in 
the  exact  form  in  which  it  was  drawn  up.  From  this  grew  the 
custom  of  accepting  or  rejecting  as  a  whole  the  petition  of  the 
Commons.1  The  custom  grew  stronger  as  time  went  on,  and  by 
the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  it  was  a  fixed  practice.2 
The  results  of  the  new  method  were  far-reaching.  The  King  was 
almost  wholly  deprived  of  his  positive  power  in  legislation.  All 
that  was  left  him  was  the  negative  power  of  disapproval.  He  could 
refuse  his  assent  to  a  law,  but  he  was  not  directly  concerned  in 
the  making  of  law,  however  much  he  might  accomplish  by  his 
influence  with  the  legislature. 

Here  at  last  we  come  upon  the  veto  as  we  find  it  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  —  the  right  of  the  executive  to 
refuse  his  assent  to  the  laws  which  the  legislature  has  framed. 
It  is  apparent  that  the  veto  is  a  remnant  of  the  more  extensive 
legislative  power  formerly  held  by  the  English  kings.  The  power 
of  legislation  was  cut  down  little  by  little,  until  at  last  only  the 
veto  was  left.  In  time,  as  we  shall  see,3  an  authority  similar  to 
the  English  veto  was  transferred  to  the  chief  executives  of  the 
American  Colonies,  and  at  last  embedded  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

§  6.  Disappearance  of  the  veto  in  England.  —  We  have  now 
traced  the  rise  of  the  veto  in  England ;  and,  before  passing  to  its 
history  in  America,  let  us  examine  briefly  the  manner  of  its  dis- 
appearance in  the  mother  country.  From  the  time  of  the  Tudors 
down  to  the  Revolution  of  1688,  the  King's  right  to  refuse  his 
assent  to  bills  of  Parliament  was  practically  unquestioned. 

The  Stuarts,  instead  of  vetoing  bills,  generally  preferred  lightly 

1  This  custom  grew  up  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.     Hallam,  Middle  Ages  (N.  Y. 
1869),  III,  89,  and  note  3. 

2  Hearn,  Government  of  England,  58. 

§  7»8,  9,  10,  II. 


1 6  Veto  Power: — Genesis.  [Ch.  i. 

to  assent  to  laws  which  they  intended  to  dispose  of  by  the  power 
of  dispensation  or  of  suspension  ;  although  James  I,  in  assenting 
to  all  the  measur.es  passed  in  Parliament  in  1606,  explained  that 
he  did  so  "  as  a  special  token  of  grace  and  favor,  being  a  matter 
unusual  to  pass  all  acts  without  exception."1  Charles  I,  however, 
was  more  outspoken  in  his  opposition  to  Parliament.  His  evasive 
approval  of  the  Petition  of  Right2  was  practically  an  attempt  to 
extend  the  principle  of  the  powers  of  dispensation  and  suspension ; 
while  his  refusal  to  assent  to  the  Militia  Bill,3  and  other  ordi- 
nances, is  considered  by  Mr.  Hallam  one  of  the  direct  causes 
.of  the  Revolution  of  i643.4  Parliament  afterwards  gave  the 
Militia  Bill  the  force  of  law  without  the  King's  signature  ; 5  a  fact 
which  may  have  been  in  the  minds  of  the  Massachusetts  Consti- 
tutional Convention  when,  in  1780,  they  gave  to  the  governor  the 
suspensive  veto  which  was  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Federal 
Convention. 

From  1688  the  veto  was  used  more  circumspectly,  although  it 
was  still  active  down  through  the  reign  of  William  III.6  After 
his  death,  the  royal  assent  to  a  bill  was  refused  only  once.  In 
the  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne  7  a  bill  was  passed  for 
settling  the  militia  of  that  part  of  Great  Britain  called  Scotland. 
It  became  known  to  the  Queen  and  her  advisers  that  the  Pre- 
tender was  on  his  way  to  Scotland,  and  it  was  therefore  thought 
unwise  to  carry  out  the  measures  proposed  by  the  bill.  As  the 
bill  had  not  yet  gone  through  the  formality  of  presentation  for  the 
royal  signature,  the  Queen,  under  advice,  refused  her  assent  to  it 
rather  than  to  wait  for  repeal.  From  that  time  to  this,  no  sov- 

1  Hearn,  Government  of  England,  61. 

2  1628.    Taswell-Langmead,  English  Constitutional  History,  544-545. 

3  February  16,  1642. 

4  Hallam,  Constitutional  History  of  England  (6  ed.),  I,  554,  559;   Bright,  History 
of  England,  II,  658.     For  the  text  of  the  veto  of  the  Militia  Bill,  see  Parliamentary 
History,  II,  1077,  1106-7,  IZI°- 

5  The  words  used  in  assenting  to  a  bill  were  and  are  "  Soit  droit  fait  comme  est 
desire,"  or  "  Le  roy  le  veult,"  or  "  Soit  fait  comme  il  est  desire."     May,  Law,  Privileges, 
etc.,  of  Parliament,  6th    ed.,  p.  496.      A   veto  was    expressed   in  the  words   "le   roy 
s'avisera." 

6  Macaulay  refers  to  at  least  four  bills  which  William  III  refused  to  sign.    Macaulay, 
History  of  England,  IV,  183,  371,  479,  687.     Dr.  William  Everett  speaks  of  two  more 
vetoes  by  William  III.     Proceedings  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical   Society,  Second 
Series,  V,  160  (January,  1890). 

7  1708.    Ibid.,  Second  Series,  V,  159  (January,  1890), 


§§  6>  7-J  Disappearance  of  the  Veto  in  England.  17 

ereign  of  England  has  vetoed  a  bill  of  Parliament.  Mr.  Bagehot 
puts  .the  case  in  a  graphic  though  exaggerated  -form  when  he 
says  that  the  Queen  "  must  sign  her  own  death-warrant  if  the 
two  Houses  send  it  to  her."1  Bills  have  been  defeated  by  the 
announcement  that  the  Sovereign  would  consider  its  promoters 
unfriendly ;  they  have  been  defeated  by  royal  influence  or  royal 
bribes,  but  never  since  1708  has  the  signature  of  the  Sovereign 
been  refused  to  a  measure  which  has  obtained  a  majority  of  both 
Houses  of  Parliament. 

§  7.  The  veto  power  in  the  American  Colonies.  —  At  the  time 
of  the  constitutional  struggle  in  England  between  the  Crown  and 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  English  colonies  were  growing 
up  in  America.  And  here  both  the  Crown_am1  the  royal  gov- 
ernors  exercised  with  great  vigor  and  Inflexibility  the  power  which 
was  gradually  disappearing  in  the  mother  country. 

'rom  the  earliest  times,  the  power  to  establish  colonies  was 
admitted  to  be  a  royal  prerogative ;  the  King  alone  could  form  or 
sanction  colonial  constitutions,  and  by  the  King,  except  in  the 
two  colonies  of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  the  governors  were 
appointed.  Jri_each  of  the  thirteen  colonies  which  later  revolted, 
the  governor  could,  under  charter,  proprietary  grant  or  royal 
instructions,  veto  any  measure  of  the  legislature  ;  and  in  each  of 
the  colonies,  except  proprietary  Maryland  and  the  charter  colonies 
of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  the  King  could  prevent  a 
bill  from  becoming  a  law,  even  after  it  had  been  approved  by 
the  governor.  In  all  cases  where  the  veto  was  exercised  it  was 
,  absolute.2 

The  King  used  his  power  over  the  Colonial  legislatures  with 
_great  freedom,  and  a  bill  which  was  obnoxious  to  any  interest 
or  rjglicy  of  the  mother  country  was  almost  sure  to  be  vetoed^ 
promptly!  Indeed,  the  disallowance  of  Colonial  acts  was  a  part 
of  the  system  of  controlling  the  Colonies  for  the  advantage  of  the 
mother  country  which  made  reconciliation  impossible.  As  an 
illustration,  which  could  be  easily  multiplied  not  only  from  the 
history  of  Virginia,  but  from  that  of  the  other  Colonies,3  it  may  be 
noted  that  by  this  process  were  annulled  the  acts  of  the  Virginia 

1  Bagehot,  English  Constitution,  83.  2  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  620. 

3  Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  V,  157, 
158,  529.  Quincy,  History  of  Harvard  University,  I,  77,  contains  an  account  of  the 
veto  of  the  Colonial  act  of  1692,  granting  a  charter  to  Harvard  College. 


1  8  Veto  Power:  —  Genesis.  [Ch.  i. 

legislature  restricting  the  slave-trade.1  In  fact,  the  abuse  of  the 
veto  power  by  the  Crown  was  so  universally  felt  that  the  first 
clause  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  set  forth  as  a  reason 
for  the  separation  of  the  Colonies  from  the  mother  country  : 
"  He  [the  King]  has  refused  his  assent  to  laws  most  wholesome 
and  necessary  for  the  public  good." 

More  distasteful  to  the  people  even  than  the  abuse  of_the  royal 
vetowasjhe  abuse  of  the  Governor's  veto.  In  Maryland,  indeed, 
'"tnlTgovernor's  right  to  veto  was  not  admitted  by  the  Burgesses. 
None  of  the  other  colonies  went  qaite  so  far  ;  but  in  all,  save  Con- 
necticut and  Rhode  Island,  where  governors  were  chosen  by  the 
people  for  a  single  year,2  and  could  not  be  expected  to  take  a  firm 
stand  against  popular  measures,  there  were  loud  complaints  because 
the  governors  refused  to  allow  acts  of  the  legislature  to  become 
laws.  Nor  was  the  feeling  groundless.  In  many  of  the  colonies  the 
governor  was  sent  over  seas,  with  little  sympathy  for  his  people. 
In  all  he  was  bound  to  regard  the  instructions  of  the  Lords  of  Trade. 
When  conflicts,  with  thp  legislatures  arose,  the  governor  made  use^of 
thejreto  power  to  sejmxg^  grant  s  or  even  the  payment  of  his  salary. 
Franklin  says  that  in  Pennsylvania  "it  became  at  last  a  regular 
practice  to  have  orders  on  the  treasury  in  his  (the  governor's) 
name  presented  along  with  bills  to  be  signed,  so  that  he  might 
actually  receive  the  former  before  he  should  sign  the  latter."  3 

§  8.  The  veto  power  in  the  first  State  constitutions.  —  In  view 
of  the  use  to  which  the  King  and  the  royal  governors  put  the  veto 
power,  it  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  that,  in 


which  were  formed  after  the  Irreaking  out  of  hostilities  with  Eng- 
land, this  power  was  greatly  limited.  In  several  states  a  commis- 
sion took  the  place  of  a  governor.  In  no  state  but  Massachusetts 

1  Bancroft,  United  States  (last  revision),  II,  77. 

2  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  I,  202;  Bancroft,  United  States  (last  ed.),  I,  272. 

3  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  621.     Examples  of  vetoes  by  royal  governors  may  be  found  in 
Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  IV,  pp.  426,  536.     In  Quincy, 
History  of  Harvard  University,  I,  302-305,  is  an   account  of  a  bill  presented  by  the 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts  June,  1722,  altering  the  constitution  of  the  Corporation 
of  Harvard  College.     Gov.  Shute  returned  it  with  the  following  conditional  approval  : 
"  I  consent  to  these  votes  provided  the  Rev.  Mr.  Benjamin  Wadsworth  and  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Benjamin  Colman  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Appleton  are  not  removed  by  said  orders,  but  still 
remain  Fellows  of  the  Corporation."     The  House  declared  that  the  proviso  "  has  a  ten- 
dency to  defeat  entirely  the  design  and  purpose  of  these  votes";  but  Shute  carried  his 
point, 


§§  7~9-l  Colonies  and  Early  States.  19 

did  the  governor  have  even  a  qualified  veto  on  the  acts  of  the 
legislature ; 1  and  in  that  state  the  governor  was  not  given  this 
qualified  veto  until  the  constitution  of  1780  was  adopted.2 

§  9.  The  veto  power  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  —  The 
,fear  of  executive  power  which  was  so  evident  in  the  State  Conven- 
tions at  this  time,  was  even  more  plainly  to  be  seen  in  the  Articles 
of  Confederation.  Under  the  national  govern  merit  thereby  estab- 
lished there  was  not  evensomuch  as  an  executive  commissionj 
except  the  "  Committee  of  States  "  which  managed  the  affairs  of 
the  nation  during  the  time  that  Congress  was  not  in  session,  and 
other  minor  committees  appointed  and  controlled  by  Congress.  In 
such  a  form  of  government  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  thatj.here 
was  no  executive  veto..  In  fact,  the  Articles  went  to  the  other 
extreme  and  granted  to  five  states,  and  in  some  cases  to  a  single 
State,  the  authority  which  was  so  feared  in  the  executive  :  for  the 
assent  of  nine  of  the  thirteen  States  was  required  to  all  important 
.acts,  and  unanimous  assent  was  required  to  Amendments  to  the 
Articles.  This  latter  provision  in  practice  resembled  very  nearly 
the  "liberum  veto  "  of  the  Polish  diet,  and  the  principle  which  was 
thus  recognized,  namely,,  that  a  single  State  could  declare  an  act 

1  Hildreth,  United  States,  III,  377. 

2  The  provision  in  the  Massachusetts  Constitution  of  1780  is  as  follows  (Chap.  I,  Sec. 
I,  Art.  II)  :  "No  bill  or  resolve  of  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives  shall  become 
law,  and  have  force  as  such,  until  it  shall  have  been  laid  before  the  governor  for  his 
revisal:  and  if  he,  upon  such  revision,  approve  thereof,  he  shall  signify  his  approbation 
by  signing  the  same.     But  if  he  have  any  objection  to  the  passing  of  such  bill  or  resolve, 
he  shall  return  the  same,  together  with  his  objections  thereto,  in  writing,  to  the  senate, 
or  house  of  representatives,  in  whichsoever  the  same  shall  have  originated,  who  shall 
enter  the  objections  sent  down  by  the  governor,  at  large,  on  their  records,  and  proceed 
to  reconsider  the  said  bill  or  resolve;  but  if,  after  such  reconsideration,  two-thirds  of  the 
said  senate  or  house  of  representatives  shall,  notwithstanding  the  said  objections,  agree 
to  pass  the  same,  it  shall,  together  with  the  objections,  be  sent  to  the  other  branch  of  the 
legislature,  where  it  shall  also  be  reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two-thirds  of  the 
members  present,  shall  have  the  force  of  law;   but  in  all  such  cases   the  vote  of  both 
houses  shall  be  determined  by  yeas  and  nays;  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting  for  or 
against  the  said  bill  shall  be  entered  upon  the  public  records  of  the  Commonwealth. 

"  And  in  order  to  prevent  unnecessary  delays,  if  any  bill  or  resolve  shall  not  be  returned 
by  the  Governor  within  five  days  after  it  shall  have  been  presented,  the  same  shall  have 
the  force  of  law."  —  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I,  960. 

The  fact  that  this  provision  is  so  similar  to  the  one  in  the  United  States  Constitution, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  Mr.  Gerry  of  Massachusetts  introduced  the  resolve 
in  the  Federal  Convention  upon  which  the  veto  power  was  based,  leads  almost  inevitably 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  national  provision  as  to  the  veto  power  is  but  an  improved 
copy  of  this  early  Massachusetts  provision. 


2O  Veto  Power:  —  Genesis.  [Ch.  i 

of  the  National  legislature  null  and  void,  if  the  State  set  up  the 
plea  of  unconstitutionality,  bore  unpleasant  fruit  in  1798-9,  in 
1832,  and  again  in  1860. 

§  IO.  The  veto  power  in  the  Federal  Convention.  —  The  whole 
machinery  of  the  government  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
was  so  defective  that  after  six  years'  experience  it  became  evident 
that  a  change  must  be  made,  ^he  Constitutional  Convention  met 
at  Philadelphia,  made  the  change,  and  the  change  restored  the  ve|o 
power. 

In  the  deliberations  of  the  Convention  it  was  early  admitted 
that  a  national  executive  was  a  necessity,  and,  with  some  reluc- 
tance, that  this  executive  should  be  endowed  with  the  veto  power. 
There  was,  however,  a  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  degree 
of  the  power.  Should  it  be  absolute  or  qualified  ?  If  the  latter, 
what  number  of  votes  in  each  house  of  Congress  should  be  required 
to  override  the  veto  ?  Should  the  power  be  exclusively  vested  in 
the  President,  or  should  it  be  entrusted  to  the  President  jointly 
with  some  other  department  of  the  government  ?  These  and  other 
questions  of  a  like  nature  arose  and  were  settled  by  the  Philadel- 
phia Convention. 

The  matter  was  first  brought  up  on  May  29,  1787,  when,  in  the 
series  of  resolves  introduced  by^an^jolph  of  Virginia,  appeared  the 
following  clause  :  1  "  The  executive  and  a  convenient  number  of 
the  national  judiciary  ought  to  compose  a  Council  of  Revision, 
with  authority  to  examine  every  act  of  the  National  Legislature 
before  it  shall  operate  and  every  act  of  a  particular  legislature 
before  a  negative  thereon  shall  be  final  ;  and  the  dissent  of  the  said 
Council  shall  amount  to  a  rejection  unless  the  act  of  the  National 
legislature  be  again  passed,  or  that  of  a  particular  legislature  be 
again  negatived  by  -  of  the  members  of  each  branch."  Mr. 
Randolph's  views  in  this  matter  may  have  been  based  on  a  sugges- 
tion  made  in  a  letter  written  to  him  by  Mr.  Madison  a  few  weeks 
previous.  Mr.  Madison  proposed  a  negative  by  the  national  gov-' 
ernment  of  the  same  nature  "in  all  cases  whatsoever,  on  the  legis- 
lative acts  of  the  States,  as  the  King  of  Great  Britain-  -heretofore 


1  Randolph  plan,  §  8,  in  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  622. 

2  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  623;  V,  108.  The  plan  here  suggested  has  been  adopted  in  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  British  North  America  Act,  Art.  90. 


§§  9-io.]          The  Confederation  and  Federal  Convention.  21 

The  so-called^Pmckney  plan  contain^  a  yptn  rlanag  much  jlSjEfc. 
have  it  now,1  The  only  other  scheme  of  government  of  any  impor- 
tance which  was  introduced  at  this  time  was  the  "  Je-rse.y  Pl^n  " ; 
but  as  it  had  no  executive,  there  was  no  provision  for  a  veto. 

The  main  discussion  in  regard  to  the  veto  power  centred  around 
the  resolve  of  Mr.  Randolph.  On  June  4,  Mr.  Gerry  of  Massachu- 
setts moved  to  amend  Randolph's  resolve  so  that  it  should  read : 
"  that  the  national  executive  shall  have  a  right  to  negative  any  leg- 
islative act  which  shall  not  afterwards  be  passed  by parts  of 

each  branch  of  the  National  Legislature." 2  Hamilton,  with  his 
characteristic  zeal  for  a  strong  central  government,  moved  to  strike 
out  the  last  fifteen  words  of  the  Amendment,  but  the  motion  was 
unanimously  rejected.3  At  this  point  Franklin  attempted  to  have 
a  suspensive  veto  substituted  for  a  negative  veto,  but  the  attempt 
failed.4  The  blank  in  Gerry's  substitute  resolve  was  then  filled  by 
the  words  "  two-thirds,"  and  the  whole  resolution  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  eight  states  to  two.5  The  Resolution  allowed  the  President 
to  retain  hjlls  far  g^ven  HaysT  a^d  did  not  apply  to  joint  resolutions, 
orders,  or  votes.  Later  on,  the  plan  was  changed  so  that  the  Presi- 
dent could  retain  a  bill  for  ten  dayar  and  could  veto  i  pint-resolutions. 
orders,  an^l  votes  as  well  a<?  hills.8 

On  June  i8th  Hamilton  introduced  his  scheme  of  government 
which  entrusted  the  executive  with  an  absolutejyeto  on  both  state_ 
and  national  legislation."    The  scheme  was  too  pronounced  to  have 
any  chance  of  acceptance  in  the   Convention,  and  was  at  once 
rejected. 

On  August  1 5th  Madison  brought  up  for  the  third  time  the 
guestion  of  including  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  with  the 
President  in  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power.  The  plan  was  one 
the  success  of  which  Madison  apparently  had  very  much  at  heart, 
but  it  was  defeated.8  Two  reasons  seem  to  have  led  to  this  result. 
In  the  first  place,  it  was  considered  that  the  judges  who  were  to 
be  the  interpreters  of  the  law  "might  receive  an  improper  bias 

1  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  622.  2  Ibid.,  IV,  623. 

8  Ibid.,  IV,  623.  *  Ibid.,  IV,  623. 

5  Mass.,  N.  Y.,  Penn.,  Del,  Va.,  N.  Car.,  S.  Car.,  Ga.,  voted  "aye."     Conn.,  Md., 
voted  "no."  —  Madison  Papers,  II,  791. 

6  Ibid.,  Ill,  1548.  7  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  632. 

8  The  vote  stood:  Aye,  3  States  — Del.,  Md.,  Va.;  No,  8  States  —  N.  H.,  Mass., 
Conn.,  N.  J.,  Pa.,  N.  Car.,  S.  Car.,  Ga.  Madison,  Papers,  III,  1333. 


22  Veto  Power:  —  Genesis.  [Ch.  L 

from  having  given  a  previous  opinion  in  a  revisionary  capacity."1 
In  the  second  place,  it  was  deemed  wise  to  keep  the  judiciary  as 
far  removed  as  possible  from  any  connection  with  political  schemes 
which  the  President  might  wish  to  bring  forward  or  influence  either 
by  his  approval  or  disapproval  of  legislation.  The  Convention  acted_ 
wi^fily  in  ^rejecting1  Madison's  proposal,  and  the  experience  of  a 
century  has  shown  how  fortunate  was  their  decision.  It  is  cer- 
tainly a  dangerous  thing  "to  place  the  judges  in  a  position  to  be 
either  corrupted  or  influenced  by  the  executive."  2 

One  of  the  curious  incidents  of  the  discussion  of  the  veto  power 
in  the  Convention  was  the  fluctuation  of  opinion  regarding  the 
proportion  of  votes  in  each  branch  of  Congress  which  should  be 
necessary  to  override  an  executive  veto.  August  15,  on  motion 
of  Mr.  Wilson,  it  was  decided  by  a  vote  of  six  states  to  four,  to 
change  it  from  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  ;  3  on  September  1  2th, 
this  decision  was  exactly  reversed  by  an  exactly  similar  vote  of  six 
states  to  four,  made  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Wilson.4  The  reason 
which  he  assigned  for  his  change  of  front  was  that  th 


fourths  rule  gave  the  President  too  jnuch  power.  jyTr.  Madison 
pointed  out  that  when  the  three-fourths  rule  was  adopted  the  Presi-  t 
dent  was  to  be  elected  by  trTeTegislature,  and  for  seven  yearsjjput 
that  since  that  time  a^  change  had^een^ade,  and  he  was  now  to 
be  elected  by  the  people,  and  for  four  years.6  Partly  on  account 
of  these  circumstances  Mr.  Madison  favored  the  retention  of  the 
three-fourths  requirement.6 

§  II.  The  veto  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
—  Such  is,  in  brief,  the  history  of  the  veto  as  it  appears  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  scope  of  the  present  work 
precludes  more  than  a  mere  outline  of  the  origin  of  the  power,  — 
a  sketch  of  a  growth  to  which  a  volume  might  profitably  be  de- 
voted. Before  passing  to  the  discussion^?  the  veto  messages  of 
the  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  which  will  occupy  the  body 
of  the  work,  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  the  Convention 
should  be  stated.  Article  I,  section  7,  §§  2  and  3  of  the  Consti- 
tution, reads  as  follows  :  "  2.  Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed 

1  Story,  Commentaries,  §  886.  2  Story,  Commentaries,  §  886. 

8  Elliot,  Debates,  V,  431 

*  Ibid.,  V,  536.  5  Emot)  Debates,  V,  538. 

6  Had  the  three-fourths  ratio  been  retained,  few  bills  would  have  been  passed  over 
the  veto.  See  §  116. 


§§  io,  ii.]  The  Veto  Clause  in  the  Constitution.  23 

the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Senate  shall,  before  it 
become  a  law,  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the  United  States ; 
if  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it ;  but  if  not,  he  shall  return  it,  with 
his  objections,  to  that  house  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  who 
shall  enter  the  objections  at  large  on  their  journal,  and  proceed  to 
reconsider  it.  If,  after  such  reconsideration,  two-thirds  of  that 
house  shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with 
the  objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  which  it  shall  be  likewise 
reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two-thirds  of  that  house,  it  shall 
become  a  law.  But  in  all  such  cases  the  votes  of  both  houses  shall 
be  determined  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons 
voting  for  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of 
each  house  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the 
President  within  ten  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall  have 
been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be  a  law  in  like  manner  as 
if  he  had  signed  it,  unless  the  Congress  by  their  adjournment  pre- 
vent its  return,  in  which  case  it  shall  not  be  a  law. 

"  Every  order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  may  be  necessary  (except 
on  a  question  of  adjournment)  shall  be  presented  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States ;  and  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall 
be  approved  by  him,  or,  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed 
by  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a  bill." 


CHAPTER   II. 

VETOES  AFFECTING   THE  FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

§  12.  Executive  methods  of  treating  a  bill. 

§  13.  Classification  of  the  vetoes. 

§  14.  Vetoes  affecting  the  form  of  the  national  Legislature. 

§  15.  Vetoes  affecting  the  form  of  the  national  Judiciary. 

§  1 6.  General  effect  of  vetoes  considered  in  this  chapter. 

§  1 2.  Executive  methods  of  treating  a  bill.  —  There  are  five 
ways  in  which  a  President  of  the  United  States  may  treat  a 
bill  which  has  duly  passed  both  houses  of  Congress  and  has 
been  presented  to  him :  I.  In  the  first  place,  he  may  sign  it, 
and  in  this  case,  the  bill  at  once  becomes  a  law.  2.  Or  if  he 
is  not  satisfied  with  a  bill,  but  nevertheless  considers  it  inadvisa- 
ble to  veto  it,  he  may  sign  it,  and  at  the  same  time  send  to  Con- 
gress a  protest  against  those  provisions  in  the  measure  of  which 
he  disapproves.  This  is  a  method  of  treating  a  bill  which  is  not 
recognized  by  the  Constitution.  3.  Again,  if  a  bill  be  presented 
to  the  President  more  than  ten  days  before  the  close  of  a  session 
of  Congress,  he  may  leave  it  unsigned  ;  in  this  case  in  ten  days  it 
becomes  a  law  without  his  signature.  4.  If  a  measure  be  pre- 
sented to  the  executive  within  ten  days  of  the  end  of  a  session  of 
Congress,  and  he  fails  to  sign  it,  the  bill  does  not  become  a  law. 
This  method  of  dealing  with  bills  is  the  well-known  "  pocket-veto." 
5.  Lastly,  a  President  may  veto  a  bill ;  that  is,  may  refuse  to  sign 
it,  and  send  his  reasons  for  such  refusal  to  Congress.1  Of  course, 
if  a  bill  has  been  presented  within  ten  days  of  the  end  of  a  session, 
simple  withholding  of  the  President's  signature  kills  it ;  but  in 
many  such  cases  the  President  has  preferred  to  return  the  bill  at 
once  with  his  objections. 

In  the  discussion  to  follow,  and  in  the  Appendices,  every  formal 
veto  message,  and  all  formal  protests  have  been  included,  but  no 
attempt  has  been  made  to  sift  out  of  the  mass  of  abortive  legisla- 

1  Constitution,  Art.  I,  sec.  vii,  §§  2  and  3.     Quoted,  ante,  §  n. 

M 


§§  12-14-       Methods  of  Treating  Bills  and  Classification.  25 

tion  the  many  bills  which  have  failed  for  want  of  approval,  and 
have  never  been  referred  to  by  the  executive  in  his  communica- 
tions to  Congress. 

§  13.    Classification  of  the  vetoes.  —  Before  beginning  the  exami- 
nation of  the  vetoes  themselves,  a  word  in  explanation  of  their 
classification  may  be  proper.     All  measures  of   Congress  relate 
either  to  the  form  of  the  government  or  to  the  exercise  of  its      / 
powers.     All  the  vetoes  may  therefore  be  conveniently  divided  (X 
into  two  corresponding  classes.     The  classes  will  be  considered 
in  the   order  mentioned   above,   partly   because   it  is   natural  to 
consider  the  form  of  a  government  before  its  powers,  and  partly 
because  the  vetoes  of  the  second  class  are  the  more  numerous  and 
important. 

Attempts  at  radical  changes  of  the  form  of  government  have 
usually  appeared  in  Congress  as  resolutions  to  amend  the  Con- 
stitution, and  consequently  the  first  class  of  vetoes  is  small.  For 
resolutions  to  submit  amendments  do  not  require  the  assent  of  the 
President.  The  great  majority  of  Congressional  measures  which 
have  required  the  assent  of  the  President  have  had  reference  to 
the  scope  of  the  powers  granted  by  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  under 
this  head  that  we  find  the  greatest  number  of  vetoes.  Within  the 
various  classes  and  sub-classes  into  which  the  vetoes  have  been 
divided  the  order  in  the  discussion  will  be  chronological. 

§  14.  JVetoes  affecting  the  form  of  the^  national  Legislating. — 
T^fi  fir^  bill  vpi-nprl  nnrjpr  the  Constitution  was  one  authorizing  a 
.change  in  the  form  of  the  IpgklaHvp  hranrh  of  the  government 
In  1792  a  bill  passed  Congress  entitled,  "An  Act  for  an  Appor- 
tionment of  Representatives  among  the  several  States."  April  5, 
1 7Q2,  President  Washington  vetopH  \\\e.  bill  in  a  message  addressed 
to  the  "  Gentlemen  of  the  House  of  Representatives,"  and  signed 
simply  "G.  Washington."1 

The  reasons  given  for  the  veto  were  as  follows  :  "  First.  The 
Constitution  has  prescribed  that  Representatives  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States  according  to  their  respective  num- 
bers ;  and  there  is  no  proportion  or  divisor  which,  applied  to  the 
respective  numbers  of  the  States,  will  yield  the  number  and  allot- 

1  See  Appendix  A,  No.  i.  See  also  Hildreth,  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  303; 
Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  189;  John  C.  Hamilton,  Life  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  IV,  334;  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  VII,  594,  IX,  115;  Writings  of  James 
Madison,  I,  544-546,  549,  550,  552,  554. 


26  Veto  Power:  —  Form  of  Government.  [Ch.  ii. 

ment  of  Representatives  proposed  by  the  bill.  Second.  The  Con- 
stitution has  also  provided  that  the  number  of  Representatives 
shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand :  which  restriction 
is,  by  the  context,  and  by  fair  and  obvious  construction,  to  be 
applied  to  the  separate  and  respective  numbers  of  the  States ;  and 
this  bill  has  allotted  to  eight  of  the  States  more  than  one  for  every 
thirty  thousand."  The  President  sent  this  message  to  Congress 
only  after  the  most  anxious  thought.  In  Mr.  Jefferson's  diary1  is 
to  be  found  a  most  interesting  account  of  the  matter.  The  vote 
on  the  bill  had  been  a  sectional  one,  the  North  favoring  and  the 
South  opposing  the  measure.  Washington  expressed  to  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson the  fear  lest  his  veto  should  be  considered  as  favoring  the 
South,  and  also  lest  the  Union  should  be  dissolved  on  account 
of  the  sectional  feeling  which  was  beginning  to  show  itself,  —  a 
foreboding  which  would  seem  to  denote  a  deep  insight  into  the 
future  development  of  political  questions.  Mr.  Jefferson  reassured 
the  President,  and  advised  him  to  veto  the  bill.  Influenced  by  this 
advice,  and  by  his  own  strong  feeling  that  the  apportionment  was, 
unconstitutional,  the  President  refused  to  sign  the  bill,  and  sent 
his  reasons  for  that  refusal  to  Congress. 

The  only  other  instance  of  the  use  of  the  veto  power  to  preserve 
the  form  of  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government  occurred  in 
Jackson's  administration.  May  31,  1836,  a  bill  passed  Congress 
which  provided  that  in  the  future  Congress  should  assemble  on  the 
first  Monday  in  November  and  should  adjourn  on  the  second  Mon- 
day in  May.2  The  President  vetoed  the  measure 8  on  the  ground 
that  no  Congress  had  the  power  to  fix  the  time  of  adjournment  for 
future  Congresses.  Jackson  based  his  statement  upon  the  fourth 
clause  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution, 
which  declares  "  that  neither  house,  during  the  session  of  Congress, 
shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  three 
days,  nor  to  any  other  place  than  that  in  which  the  two  houses 
shall  be  sitting."  The  President  also  quoted,  as  a  reason  for  his 
opposition,  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  authorizes  the 
executive  to  adjourn  Congress  in  case  the  two  houses  cannot  agree 
upon  a  day  for  adjournment. 

When  the  veto  message  came  up  in  the  Senate,  Clay,  Webster, 

1  Elliot,  Debates,  IV,  624. 

2  Congressional  Debates,  XII,  Part  II,  1649. 

3  Appendix  A,  No.  20. 


§§  14,  is-]  The  Legislative  Department.  27 

Calhoun,  Clayton,  and  others  opposed  it.1  Mr.  Goldsborough,  one 
of  the  opponents,  argued  2  that  the  clause  upon  which  the  veto  was 
founded  3  referred  to  temporary  adjournments  of  either  house  pend- 
ing the  adjournment  of  the  session,  but  not  to  the  close  of  the  ses- 
sion. Furthermore,  he  pointed  out  that,  granting  the  President's 
statement  that  one  Congress  could  not  fix  the  time  of  adjournment 
for  future  Congresses,  it  should  have  no  weight  in  the  present  case, 
since  the  bill  particularly  provided  that  future  Congresses  might 
adjourn  at  any  other  time  than  that  set  down  in  the  act,  if  only 
both  houses  should  agree  to  the  change.  Mr.  Goldsborough's  criti- 
cism seems  just.  Jackson's  conclusion  can  hardly  be'drmyn  frr"^- 
.his  premises,  and  even  if  his  argument  were  unassailajble^Jiis^  pbj  ec- 
tion  would  hardly  apply  torthe  bill  he  was  vetoing. 

§  15.  Vetoes  affecting  the  form  of  the  national  Judiciary.  —  The 
veto  has  been  called  into  use  to  protect  not  only  the  form  of  Con- 
gress, but  also  the  form  of  the  national  judiciary,  and  the  attempted 
changes  in  this  latter  department  which  have  not  met  with  execu- 
tive approval  have  been  of  no  greater  importance  than  those  which 
related  to  Congress. 

The  first  of  these  judiciary  vetoes  was  interposed  by  President 
Madison,  April  3,  1812,  to  a  bill  entitled:  "An  act  providing  for 
the  trial  of  causes  pending  in  the  respective  District  Courts  of  the 
United  States,  in  case  of  the  absence  or  disability  of  the  judges 
thereof."  4  The  bill  was  intended  primarily  to  give  relief  to  the  dis- 
trict courts  of  New  York  State,  which  were  some  seven  hundred 
cases  behind  in  their  work.  The  President  refused  his  assent  to 
the  bill  for  four  reasons,  the  most  important  of  them  being  as  fol- 
lows. In  the  first  place,  the  new  district  judges  contemplated  by 
the  act  were  to  be  the  Supreme  Court  judges,  who  were  already 
Circuit  Court  judges.  The  law  allowed  appeals  from  the  district  to 
the  circuit  courts.  But  as  the  act  contemplated  making  the  same 
man  both  circuit  and  district  judge,  the  President  thought  that  the 
advantage  of  an  appeal  would  be  lost.  In  the  second  place,  the  act 
left  it  with  the  President  to  determine  when  it  should  be  necessary 
for  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  perform  the  duties  of 
District  Court  justices.  Mr.  Madison  very  wisely  considered  that 
this  was  "an  unsuitable  relation  of  members  of  the  judiciary 

1  Congressional  Debates,  XII,  Part  II,  1859. - 

2  Ibid.,  XII,  Part  II,  1878. 

8  Art.  I,  Sec.  V,  §  4.  *  Appendix  A,  No.  5. 


28  Veto  Power: — Form  of  Government.  [Ch.  a. 

department  to  a  discretionary  authority  of  the  executive  depart- 
ment." Lastly,  the  President  vetoed  the  bill  because  it  virtually 
appointed  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  new  offices,  thereby 
usurping  a  power  which  belonged  to  the  executive  branch  of  the 
government.1  The  President's  objections  were  evidently  consid- 
ered sound,  for  the  Senate  sustained  the  veto  by  a  large  vote.2 

December  14,  1842,  President  Tyler  sent  to  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives his  reasons  for  the  "  pocket  veto  "  at  the  last  session 
of  Congress  of  a  bill  entitled :  "  An  act  regulating  the  taking  of 
testimony  in  cases  of  contested  elections,  and  for  other  purposes."3 
Mr.  Tyler  did  not  sign  the  bill,  because  it  had  been  presented  to 
him  so  near  the  end  of  the  session  that  he  could  not  find  time  to 
read  it  through  before  Congress  adjourned. 

The  practice  of  deluging  the  President  in  the  last  moments  of 
a  session  of  Congress  with  bills  requiring  his  signature  is  very  in- 
jurious to  the  interests  of  good  legislation.  Little  or  no  time  can 
be  given  to  the  consideration  of  each  act,  and  as  a  result,  bills 
become  laws  which  even  a  slight  examination  would  cause  to  be 
rejected.4  Under  such  circumstances,  a  President  would  be  justi- 
fied in  refusing  to  sign  a  measure  of  which  he  knew  nothing.  In 
the  case  under  consideration,  the  President's  failure  to  approve 
may  have  come  wholly  from  an  unwillingness  to  sign  a  measure  of 
whose  provisions  he  was  ignorant.  But  the  great  care  with  which 
Mr.  Tyler  elaborates  his  reason  for  the  veto  raises  a  suspicion  that 
he  objected  less  to  the  time  of  presentation  than  to  the  measure 
itself.  In  the  last  paragraph  of  the  message  he  betrays  such 
knowledge  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  as  to  show  that  he  had 
spent  much  time  upon  it  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress. 

January  22,  1873,  the  veto  was  again  made  use  of  to  preserve 
the  form  of  the  judiciary.  On  that  day,  President  Grant  refused 
to  sign  a  bill  entitled :  "  An  act  in  relation  to  new  trials  in  the 
Court  of  Claims." 5  The  purpose  of  this  act  was  to  modify  an 
existing  act  of  Congress  which  allowed  the  government  to  suspend 
payment  for  two  years  on  judgments  obtained  against  it  in  the 

1  Post,  §  16.  2  Appendix  A,  No.  5.  3  Appendix  A,  No.  27, 

4  President  Cleveland  stated  to  Mr.  Kenna  in  February,  1888,  that  he  had  received 
one  hundred  bills  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  session,  one  of  which,  an  important  appro- 
priation bill,  he  had  not  had  time  even  to  read.  —  MS.  letter  of  Senator  G.  F.  Hoar  to 
Professor  Hart,  Feb.  II,  1888. 

5  Appendix  A,  No.  87. 


§  15.3  The  Judiciary  Department.  29 

Court  of  Claims.  If  evidence  came  to  light  within  that  time  which 
showed  the  claim  to  be  unjust,  the  United  States  could  move  for  a 
new  trial.  The  privilege  of  suspending  judgment  was  only  exer- 
cised in  doubtful  cases  where  fraud  was  suspected.  The  act  under 
consideration  reduced  the  time  during  which  the  government  could 
suspend  payment  from  two  years  to  six  months.  The  President 
refused  to  sanction  the  bill,  on  the  ground  that,  by  reducing  the 
time  during  which  judgment  was  suspended,  it  greatly  increased 
the  opportunities  for  defrauding  the  government.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  pointed  out  that  perfectly  good  claims  would  gain  nothing 
by  the  new  law,  since,  under  the  old  law,  claims  which  were  evi- 
dently meritorious  were  settled  without  delay.  The  President's 
message  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  and 
ordered  to  be  printed ;  but  no  attempt  was  ever  made  to  pass  the 
bill  over  the  veto. 

May  26,  1 876,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  entitled :  "  An  act 
providing  for  the  recording  of  deeds,  mortgages,  and  other  con- 
veyances affecting  real  estate  in  the  District  of  Columbia."  l  The 
bill  was  vetoed  because  it  was  drawn  with  such  indefiniteness  and 
uncertainty  that  it  would  lead  to  serious  complications  in  regard 
to  transfers  of  real  estate,  if  it  should  become  a  law. 

Only  once  since  President  Grant's  administration  has  the  execu- 
tive refused  to  sign  a  bill  affecting  the  national  judiciary.  March 
6,  1878,  President  Hayes  vetoed  a  bill  entitled:  "An  act  to  au- 
thorize a  special  term  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  southern  district  of  Mississippi,  to  be  held  at  Scranton,  in  Jack- 
son County."  2  The  President  objected  to  the  bill  for  two  reasons. 
In  the  first  place,  because  the  time  between  the  passage  of  the  bill 
and  the  proposed  session  of  the  Circuit  Court  was  not  sufficient  to 
allow  the  notice  of  the  extra  term  to  be  published  in  the  manner 
contemplated  by  the  bill.  In  the  second  place,  because  although 
the  United  States  was  interested  in  forty-nine  of  the  suits  which 
it  was  proposed  to  bring  in  the  extra  term,  it  was  shown  that  the 
government  could  not  prepare  for  trial  on  such  short  notice,  since 
no  fund  appropriated  by  Congress  could  be  made  available  for  that 
purpose.  When  the  message  was  read  in  the  House  there  was  a 
little  desultory  debate  as  to  just  how  many  cases  the  proposed  court 
would  have  to  try.  Then  the  veto  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  and  no  further  action  was  taken  by  Congress. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  100.  2  Ibid.,  No.  118. 


3O  Veto  Power:  —  Form  of  Government.  Ch.  ii. 

§  1 6.  General  effect  of  vetoes  considered  in  this  chapter.  — • 
The  vetoes  already  considered,  although  few  in  number,  are  the^ 
pnlvones  in  our  history  which  hayejiirectlv  protected  the  form  of 
the  government. The  executive  has  frequently  disagreed  with  Con- 
gress as  to  the  powers  which  the  Constitution  has  granted  to  Con- 
gress and  to  the  States,  and  in  some  of  the  clauses  of  that  docu- 
ment different  meanings  have  been  attached  to  almost  every  word ; 
but  though  there  have  been  differences  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
the  instrument,  there  have  been  few  attempts  essentially  to  change 
the  form  of  government  established  under  it.  This  is  the  more 
remarkable  when  it  is  remembered  that  Congress  had  a  very  large 
share  in  fixing  the  form  of  government,  the  outlines  of  which  alone 
were  settled  by  the  Constitution.  Indeed,  only  one  of  the  unsuc- 
cessful attempts  at  change  which  we  have  just  examined  was  of 
any  constitutional  importance.  This  was  the  apportionment  bill 
that  Washington  vetoed  :  a  bill  which  did  seem  to  threaten  in  some 
degree  the  constitutional  method  of  assigning  representatives.  But 
even  this  attack  on  the  form  of  the  legislature  was  probably  un- 
intentional. The  other  vetoes  were  called  out  either  because  the 
proposed  legislation  seemed  inexpedient,  or  because  it  seemed 
corrupt.  Jackson  to  be  sure  tried  to  base  his  veto  of  the  bill 
regulating  the  length  of  the  sessions  of  Congress  on  constitutional 
grounds,  but  he  hardly  made  out  his  case. 

In  summing  up  this  comparatively  unimportant  branch  of  the 
subject,  we  may  say  that  the  vetoes  included  here  do  not  stand  for 
any  great  constitutional  principles,  nor  even  for  any  connected 
policy  of  mere  expediency,  but  are  isolated  endeavors  of  the  execu- 
tive to  prevent  the  legislature  from  passing  useless,  or  worse  than 
useless,  laws, 


CHAPTER    III. 

VETOES  AFFECTING   THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE 
POWERS   OF  GOVERNMENT. 

§  17.   Classification  of  vetoes  in  this  chapter. 

§  1 8.    Executive  claims  to  legislative  power  supported  by  the  veto. 
§  19.   The  Bank  veto. 
§  20.    Removal  of  the  deposits. 

§  21.   Vetoes  for  the  protection  of  the  executive  from  legislative  encroachment. 
§  22.    Power  over  foreign  affairs :  the  treaty  power. 

§  23.    Establishment  of  consular  and  diplomatic  offices. 
§  24.    Diplomatic  intercourse. 
§  25.   The  power  of  appointment. 

§  26.    Requiring  names  of  candidates  for  appointment. 
§  27.    Requiring  papers  relative  to  removals  from  office. 
§  28.   The  Tenure  of  Office  Act. 
§  29.  The  Fitz-John  Porter  Bill. 

§  30.    Protest  for  the  protection  of  the  President's  war  power. 
§  31.    Protest  and  veto  for  the  protection  of  the  President's  personal  rights 

under  the  Constitution. 
§  32.   Covode  Investigation. 
§  33.   The  President's  salary. 

§  34.   Use  of  the  veto  in  controversies  arisjng  out  of  the  Civil  War. 
§  35.    Riders  on  appropriation  bills. 
§  36.   General  effect  of  the  vetoes  for  the  protection  of  the  Executive. 

§!/.  Classification  of  vetoes  in  this  chapter.  —  The  second  of 
the  two  great  divisions  into  which  the  vetoes  have  been  separated 
includes  those  vetoes  which  concern  either  the  distribution  or  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  of  government.  The  vetoes  relating  to  the 
distribution  of  powers  will  be  taken  up  in  the  present  chapter; 
those  relating  to  the  exercise  of  powers  will  be  considered  in  Chap- 
ter IV. 

On  each  of  the  three  branches  of  the  government  has  been  con- 
ferred a  separate  authority,  a  distinct  portion  of  the  power  which 
the  people  ceded  to  the  national  government.  As  between  the 
legislature  and  judiciary,  and  between  the  judiciary  and  executive, 
the  distribution  has  generally  been  acquiesced  in,1  or  at  least  such 

1  President  Jackson  in  the  bank  veto,  however,  claimed  power  belonging  to  the 
Supreme  Court.  Post,  §§  19,  57. 


32  Veto  Power: — Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iii. 

contentions  as  have  occurred  have  not  given  rise  to  vetoes.  But 
the  distribution  as  between  the  executive  and  the  legislative  de- 
partments has  not  been  undisputed.  Congress  has  at  various  times 
.attempted,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously,  to  usurp  power 
^belonging  to  the  President,  and  many  of  these  attempts  have  been 
frustrated  by  the  veto.  The  wisdom  of  the  Convention  in  provid- 
ing a  veto  is  thus  vindicated ;  for  (me  of  the  main  objects  of  the 
power  wps  that  thp  PresjHent  might  protect  his  office  from  legisla- 
tive encroachment^ 

Since  the  President  has  no  definite  power  of  initiative  in  legis- 
lation, and  absolutely  no  power  of  amendment,  it  is  evident  that 
the  ^eto  cannotj>p  nse^Las  a  means_of  positive  encr<^J3jnentj3n 
.the_powers  of  Congress.  .I^was  intended  as  a  means  of  defence, 
not  as  an  instrument  of^attack.  It  is  therefore  remarkable  that 
the  first  case  of  the  use  of  the  veto  in  any  contest  over  the  dis- 
tribution of  power  between  the  President  and  Congress  was  a  case 
of  executive  aggression. 

§  1 8.  Executive  claims  to  legislative  power  supported  by  the 
veto.  —  Jackson's  bank  veto  is  the  one  instance  in  our  history 
where  the  veto  has  been  ji^ed  to  ronvpy  a^crmnter-propositiQn  to. 
pi»gte$s._  In  this  case  the  President  used  the  power  less  as  a 
protection  of  the  executive  against  an  attack  from  Congress  than 
as  a  cover  for  an  flt^c^  by  thp  executive  affijpgt-  Tpngr^gg 

§  19.  The  Bank  veto.  —  The  Second  United  States  Bank,  which 
had  been  chartered  in  1816  for  a  term  of  twenty  years,  applied,  in 
1832,  for  a  new  charter,  and  a  bill  for  this  purpose  passed  Congress 
on  July  3,  I832.1  On  the  tenth  of  the  same  month  it  was  vetoed 
by  President  Jackson.2  The  financial  side  of  the  veto  will  be 
considered  in  another  place.3  Here  we  must  consider  the  new  and 
strange  doctrines  as  to  executive  power  advanced  in  the  message. 

The  President  first  offered  the  novel  suggestion  that  if  he  had 
been  called  upon  he  could  have  laid  before  Congress  a  measure  to 
which  no  objection  would  have  been  made.  This  plan  of  waiting 
for  the  President's  draft  of  a  proposed  law  does  not  seem  at  all  in 

1  A  laborious  search  in  the  printed  records  of  the  government  and  in  newspapers 
fails  to  disclose  the  text  of  this  bill. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  14;   Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II, 
31-75;   Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  44-54,  68-70,  132-147;   Sumner, 
Jackson,  Chapters  XI-XIV;  Parton,  Jackson,  Chapters  XX,  XXIX,  XXX. 

8  Post,  §  57. 


§§  i;-2o.]          Executive  Claims  to  Legislative  Power.  33 

keeping  with  the  Constitution,  which  delegates  kgislative  power 
to  Congress,  reserving  to  the  President  only  a  qualified  veto.  ^Jack- 
son's claim  was  in  effect  that  he  sho"^  h^  h^  R  \\f\\\r\  *>  *  V 
detaiTs""of  the  law,  or  in  other  words,  that  he  should  have  initiated 
the  legislation.1 

Put  the  President  went  further,  and  in  the  face  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  duty  HpPrQVf"H  hy  President  Madison,  and  of  a  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court.2  declared  the  new  charter  unconstitu- 
tional. The  position  was  based  not  on  a  fundamental  constitutional 
objection  to  the  chartering  of  the  bank,  but  on  his  individual  opin- 
ion that  some  other  provisions  might  have  better  served  the  pur- 
pose for  which  the  bill  was  drawn*  Dr.  Von  Hoist  states  the  case 
forcibly  but  in  a  much  exaggerated  form  when  he  says  :  "  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  Union  has  its  own  Constitutional  law  ;  each 
President  has  his  own ;  each  new  majority  in  Congress  its  own  ; 
and  the  public  law  of  the  Union  is  in  principle  the  chaos  of  law, 
and  the  decision  of  a  question  of  law  lies  outside  the  realm  of 
possibility."  3 

It  would  be  difficult  and  useless  to  attempt  to  trace  all  the 
remote  consequences  to  which  these  principles  of  Jackson's  would 
lead.  It  is  enough  for  the  present  purpose  to  notice  that  the 
president  laid  claim  to  a  power  of  initiative  which  belonged  to 
Congress,  and  that  the  veto  was  used  to  fortify  and  defend  this 
claim^ 

§  20.  Removal  of  the  deposits.  —  In  pursuance  of  the  policy 
outlined  in  the  bank  veto  of  July  10,  1832,  Jackson,  through  his 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Taney,  in  September,  1833,  ordered 
the  removal  of  the  government's  deposits  from  the  United  States 
Bank.  The  order  led  to  the  famous  Senate  resolution,4  censuring 
the  President,  and  to  his  equally  famous  protest 5  against  the  cen- 
sure. While  this  protest  is  not  legally  a  veto,  it  had  many  of  the 
effects  of  a  veto,  and  is  intimately  connected  with  the  question  we 
are  considering ;  for  the  protest  was  used  by  the  executive  to  for- 
tify the  position  taken  in  the  veto  of  the  Bank  Bill,  and  to  lay  claim 
on  behalf  of  the  executive  to  still  greater  power. 

1  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  45. 

2  McCulloch  v.  State  of  Maryland,  4  Wheaton,  423;  3  Stats,  at  Large,  266. 

3  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  49. 
*  Debates  of  Congress,  Vol.  X,  Part  I,  58. 

6  Appendix  B,  No.  I. 


34  Veto  Power:  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iii. 

Jackson  defended  the  removal  of  the  deposits  on  the  ground 
that  the  placing  of  government  funds  in  the  bank  was  discretion- 
ary with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  furthermore,  the  President 
maintained  that,  since  the  treasury  was  one  of  the  executive  depart- 
ments, the  President  had  full  authority  to  control  the  Secretary, 
and  therefore  to  direct  the  removal  of  the  deposits  on  his  own 
responsibility.  In  both  particulars  the  action  of  the  President  was 
open  to  exception. 

In  the  first  place,  let  us  examine  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury's 
authority  to  remove  the  deposits  at  his  discretion.  The  Secretary's 
power  in  the  matter  was  not  unlimited ;  for  although  the  wording 
of  the  statute  was  very  general,1  the  meaning  was  limited.  So 
careful  and  accurate  a  writer  as  Mr.  Story  says  that  it  was  gener- 
ally understood  that  the  deposits  were  not  to  be  removed  by  the 
Secretary  except  for  "  high  and  important  reasons  of  state,  upon 
unexpected  emergencies."2  The  Secretary,  it  is  true,  may  have 
considered  that  he  was  face  to  face  with  an  "unexpected  emer- 
gency," but  he  had  no  right  to  make  that  assumption  in  the  face 
of  the  favorable  report  of  the  bank's  condition  which  had  been 
made  by  a  Committee  of  Congress,  many  of  whom  were  personally 
opposed  to  the  renewal  of  the  bank  charter.3  In  short,  the  cause 
for  the  removal  of  the  deposits  was  not  the  "unexpected  emer- 
gency," but  Jackson's  personal  determination  that  they  should 
not  be  allowed  to  remain  in  the  United  States  Bank.  If  this  was 
not  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the  Act  of  1816,  it  was  most  certainly 
contrary  to  its  spirit ;  and  an  usurpation  of  Congressional  power. 

The  further  assumption  of  Jackson  that,  in  case  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  would  not  remove  the  deposits,  the  President  him- 
self could  and  would  undertake  the  responsibility,  was  equally 
bold.  He  supported  it  by  saying  that  the  Constitution  had 
conferred  all  executive  authority  upon  him.4 

1  "  The  deposits  of  the  money  of  the  United  States,  in  places  in  which  the  said  bank 
and  branches  thereof  may  be  established,  shall  be  made  in  said  bank  or  branches  thereof, 
unless  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  any  time  otherwise  order  and  direct;   in  which 
case  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  immediately  lay  before  Congress,  if  in  session, 
and  if  not,  immediately  after  the  commencement  of  the  next  session,  the  reason  of  such 
order  or  direction.'^  —  3  Stats,  at  Large,  274. 

2  Life  and  Letters  of  Story,  II,  156. 

3  Debates  of  Congress,  XI,  605,  638;  XII,  191. 

4  Dr.  Von  Hoist  sarcastically  observes  that  even  if  this  were  true,  it  could  evidently 
only  mean  "  all  the  executive  powers  granted  by  the  Constitution,  not  all  authority  which 


§§  20, 2i.]          Executive  Claims  to  Legislative  Power.  35 

• 

The  President,  in  saying  that  all  executive  authority  was  con- 
ferred upon  him,  meant  that  the  heads  of  the  different  departments 
were  responsible  to  him  alone.  The  claim  was  contrary  to  the 
practice  of  the  government ;  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury was  created  by  law,  his  duties  defined  by  law,  and  his  control 
over  public  money  was  limited  by  law.  In  the  case  of  Marbury  v. 
Madison,1  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  had  already 
emphatically  declared  that  Congress  could  impose  duties  on  the 
heads  of  the  executive  departments,  and  that  the  officers  on  whom 
sucjh  duties  were  imposed  were  solely  responsible  for  the  per- 
formance of  these  duties,  and  were  responsible  only  to  the  law 
imposing  the  obligation.  This  decision  directly  covers  the 
present  case ;  and  even  if  the  heads  of  the  departments  were 
in  general  subject  to  the  will  of  the  chief  executive,  in  the 
particular  instance  under  discussion  the  President  was  not  war- 
ranted in  ordering  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  contrary  to  the 
will  of  Congress. 

To  sum  up :  President  Jackson,  in  the  first  place,  gave  his  own 
construction  to  an  act  of  Congress,  and  it  was  a  construction 
which  only  a  most  rigid  adherence  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  law 
could  justify.  In  the  second  place,  Jackson  assumed  power  over 
the  acts  of  the  heads  of  the  departments,  which  was  not  granted  by 
the  Constitution,  which  had  not  been  conceded  by  Congress,  and 
which  had  been  expressly  denied  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  an  important  decision.  It  was  this  stretch  of 
prerogative  which  President  Jackson's  protest  of  April  15,  1834, 
justified  and  glorified. 

§21.  Vetoes  for  the  protection  of  the  executive  from  legislative 
encroachment.2  —  None  of  President  Jackson's  successors  have  laid 

should,  according  to  any  political  theory  whatever,  or  according  to  any  view  of  any  per- 
son whatever,  belong  to  the  highest  possessor  of  executive  power."  —  Constitutional  His- 
tory of  the  United  States,  II,  63. 

1  I  Cranch,  165,  166. 

2  One  veto  should  be  included  at  this  point  which  comes  properly  under  the  main 
head  of  vetoes  for  the  protection  of  the  executive,  but  which  cannot  be  classed  under  any 
of  the  following  subheads.    February  14,  1877,  the  President  vetoed  a  bill  which  amended 
the  statutes  in  such  a  manner  that  the  clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives  should  select 
the  newspapers  throughout  the  United  States  in  which  the  advertising  of  the  executive 
departments  should  be  placed  (Appendix  A,  No.  115).     Prior  to  1867  this  work  had 
been  done  by  the  heads  of  the  departments.     In  that  year  the  advertising  in  ten  of  the 
States  which  had  seceded  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  clerk  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives.   The  President  objected  to  the  bill  because  it  made  general  and  permanent  a 


36  Veto  Power:  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  Hi. 

• 
claim  to  the  extended  executive  power  asserted  by  his  veto  of  the 

Bank  Bill  and  his  protest  against  the  Senate  resolution  of  cen- 
sure. On  the  contrary,  the  executive  has  generally  been  satisfied 
to  defend  himself  from  the  encroachments  of  Congress,  and  it  is 
interesting  to  notice  that  Jackson  himself  was  the  first  who  was 
obliged  to  contend  for  his  constitutional  rights. 

§  22.  PogEfll^gver  *7*-fi1gn  aff"~-'  the  treaty  power.  —  On  Octo- 
ber 14,  1832,  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  Two 
Sicilies  was  signed,  by  which  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  was  to 
pay  an  indemnity  to  merchants  of  the  United  States  whose  vessels 
had  been  destroyed  in  1809,  1811,  and  1812  by  ships  under  the 
control  of  the  Two  Sicilies.1  Certain  claimants  under  this  treaty 
petitioned  the  Senate,  December  15,  1834,  for  an  immediate  settle- 
ment of  the  claims  against  the  Two  Sicilies  at  a  reduced  rate.  In 
a  word,  they  wished  to  discount  their  claims  against  the  foreign 
government.  A  bill  was  drawn  in  accordance  with  this  petition 
and  passed  both  houses  of  Congress.  It  was  vetoed  by  Jackson, 
March  3,  1  83  5,2  because  it  authorized  "the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
to  compromise  the  claims  allowed  by  the  commissioners  under  the 
treaty  with  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies."  The  President  declared 
that  the  Constitution  granted  the  executive  full  authority  to  nego- 
tiate with  a  foreign  power,  and  Congress  need  not,  in  fact  could 
not,  empower  him  to  act  in  the  matter. 

The  compromise  which  was  desired  was  of  course  nothing  but 
a  new  treaty  with  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  ;  and  as  the 


dent^by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate.  ,is  empowered  by 
Constitution  to  make  all  treaties.3  it  certainly  would  seem  to  be  an 
assumption  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  authorize  the  President  to 
enter  into  negotiations.  To  be  sure,  the  Senate  may  amend,  and 
has  amended,  treaties  submitted  to  it;4  and  it  might  also,  with  per- 

provision  only  intended  to  be  local  and  temporary;  because  the  law  could  hardly  fail  to 
work  unsatisfactorily;  and  because  it  was  an  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  the  executive 
departments.  Two  other  vetoes  of  minor  importance  call  for  mention  here.  One  was 
President  Tyler's  veto  of  a  bill  regulating  the  construction  of  revenue  cutters  (Appendix 
A,  No.  30).  The  other  was  President  Buchanan's  veto  of  a  resolution  increasing  the 
speed  of  mail  carriers  on  certain  postal  routes  (Appendix  A,  No.  43).  Both  bills  were 
vetoed  because,  among  other  reasons,  they  encroached  upon  the  authority  of  the  executive. 

1  United  States  Treaties  and  Conventions,  855. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  19;   Senate  Journal,  2  sess.,  23  Cong.,  p.  233. 

8  Treaties  of  all  descriptions  are  included  in  the  grant  of  power  by  the  Constitution. 
—  Story,  Commentaries,  §  1  502. 

4  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  Law,  201. 


§§  21-23.]  Foreign  Affairs.  37 

feet  propriety,  request  the  President  to  enter  into  negotiations  with 
a  foreign  power ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  chief  executive  would  be 
under  no  obligations  whatever  to  heed  the  request.1  The  Presi- 
dent alone  has  full  power  to  take  the  preliminary  steps  in  making 
a  treaty,  and  he  derives  this  power,  not  from  Congress,  but  directly 
from  the  Constitution. 

Un4er  these  circumstances.  President  Jackson's  treatment  of^ 
the  bill  under  discussion  was  constitutionally  correct.  He  was 
defending  in  a  constitutional  manner  a  power  which  constitution- 
ally belonged  to  the  executive.  Had  he  suffered  the  action  of  Con- 
gress to  stand,  he  would  have  given  his  sanction  to  its  arrogation 
of  authority,  and  the  affair  would  have  become  a  precedent  for 
future  Congressional  attempts,  perhaps  more  intent  than  the  pres- 
ent one  on  depriving  the  President  of  the  treaty-making  power. 

§  23.  Establishment  of  consular  and  diplomatic  offices.  —  In 
President  Grant's  administration,  Congress  again  attempted  to 
encroach  upon  the  power  of  the  executive  in  foreign  affairs.  The 
first  of  these  attempts  was  met  by  a  strong  protest ;  the  second  by 
a  veto.  August  14,  1876,  President  Grant  signed  a  bill  entitled 
"An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  consular  and  diplomatic 
services  of  the  government  for  the  year  ending  June  thirtieth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-seven,  and  for  other  purposes  "  ;  but 
in  signing  the  bill  he  protested  against  a  provision  in  the  act  which 
directed  that  notice  be  sent  to  certain  diplomatic  and  consular  offi- 
cers to  close  their  offices.2  The  President  admitted  the  right  of 
Congress  to  refuse  to  appropriate  money  for  the  salaries  of  consu- 
lar and  other  public  ministers,  but  he  denied  the  right  of  Congress 
to  order  the  closing  of  any  diplomatic  or  consular  offices.  This 
claim  he  based  on  that  section  of  the  Constitution3  which  provides 
that  the  President  "  shall  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint  ambassadors  or  other  pub- 
lic ministers  and  consuls."  The  Constitution  nowhere  makes  pro- 
vision for  the  removal  of  these  officers,  and  consequently  the  power 
of  removal  is  vested  in  the  department  having  the  power  of  appoint- 
ment. This  last  statement  was  apparently  admitted  by  all,  and 
hence  the  real  contest  related  to  the  power  of  appointment. 

The  President's  position  seems  sound  and  reasonable,  yet  when 
the  protest  was  read  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  it  caused 

1  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  Law,  202. 

2  Appendix  B,  No.  8.  3  Art.  II,  Sec.  II,  §  2. 


38  Veto  Power:  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iii. 

much  discussion.  Mr.  Holman  of  Indiana  opened  the  debate,  and 
asserted  that  the  House  of  Representatives  could  alone  close  a 
foreign  diplomatic  office,  and  his  reason  for  this  statement  was  that 
the  foreign  diplomatic  missions  were  created,  or  at  least  authorized, 
by  statute.1  General  Garfield  then  challenged  him  to  name  an 
instance  in  point,  —  a  challenge  which  Mr.  Holman  was  unable  to 
meet.  Mr.  Tucker  of  Virginia  then  took  up  the  argument  which 
the  "Great  Objector"  had  dropped,  and  in  a  much  more  logical 
way  maintained  that,  while  the  Constitution  authorized  the  creation 
of  diplomatic  offices,  Congress  created  them ;  that  until  Congress 
had  passed  appropriations  for  the  salaries  of  the  various  foreign 
diplomatic  agents,  the  President  could  not  appoint  them  ;  that 
Congress  must  determine  how  many  embassadors,  ministers,  and 
other  diplomatic  officers  were  necessary,  and  that  then  it  is  in  the 
executive's  power  to  fill  such  offices ;  that  the  President's  refusal  to 
fill  offices  thus  created  would  be  an  impeachable  offence.  In  short, 
Mr.  Tucker  argued  that  Congress  created  the  diplomatic  offices, 
and  could  therefore  destroy  them  if  it  saw  fit.2  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  held  by  General  Garfield,  Mr.  Lawrence,  and  others  that  the 
Constitution  created  the  diplomatic  offices,  and  that  it  rested 
entirely  with  the  President  to  appoint  men  to  fill  as  many  such 
offices  as  he  chose. 

The  great  argument  against  the  protest  seemed  to  be  that  the 
appropriations  for  the  various  offices  in  some  way  created  the 
offices.  This  cannot  be  true,  since  in  the  early  days  of  the  gov- 
ernment, when  it  was  in  the  hands  of  those  who  drew  up  the  Con- 
stitution, and  who  presumably  knew  better  than  any  one  else  what 
that  document  meant,  a  sum  in  gross  was  appropriated  for  the  ex- 
penses of  the  diplomatic  service,  and  it  was  left  to  the  executive 
to  determine  the  grade  of  the  officers,  and  the  countries  to  which 
they  should  be  sent.3  The  weight  of  argument  would  therefore 
seem  to  be  in  favor  of  the  President.4  The  hostility  which  the 
President's  protest  provoked  shows  its  necessity,  and  throws  a 
strong  light  on  the  encroachments  which  are  constantly  and  im- 
perceptibly being  made  by  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government 
upon  the  executive. 

1  Congressional  Record,  44  Cong.,  I  sess.,  5684.  2  Ibid.,  5686-5688. 

8  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  402.  See  also  I  Stats, 
at  Large,  128,  299,  345. 

4  The  same  view  is  taken  by  Dr.  Von  Hoist  in  his  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United 
States,  199,  note  2. 


§§  23-25.]  Foreign  Intercourse.  39 

§  24.  Diplomatic  intercourse.  —  Within  a  year  the  President 
was  again  called  upon  to  protect  his  authority  in  foreign  affairs. 
December  15,  1876,  Mr.  Swann  introduced  into  the  House,  from 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  two  resolutions  entitled  respec- 
tively, "Joint  resolution  relating  to  congratulations  from  the  Argen- 
tine Republic,"  and  "  Joint  resolution  in  reference  to  congratula- 
tions from  the  Republic  of  Pretoria,  South  Africa."  The  resolution 
directed  the  Secretary  of  State  to  convey  to  the  respective  nations 
the  thanks  of  Congress  for  their  congratulations. 

These  resolutions  passed  the  Senate  January  n,  1877,  and  on 
January  26  they  were  vetoed.1  The  President  refused  his  assent 
to  the  resolutions  because  the  Constitution  vested  in  the  executive 
the  reception  and  conduct  of  all  correspondence  with  foreign  states. 
President  Grant  based  his  claim  on  the  clause' in  the  Constitution 
which  entrusts  to  the  President  solely  the  reception  of  "  embassa- 
dors  and  other  public  ministers," 2  a  clause  which  the  President 
correctly  considered  to  include  all  intercourse  with  foreign  powers. 
If  it  be  claimed  that  this  clause  in  the  Constitution  needs  sup- 
port in  order  to  sustain  the  President's  position,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  turn  to  the  act  of  Congress  establishing  what  was  then  the 
Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  but  which  is  now  the  Department 
of  State.3  The  language  used  in  that  act  gives  no  countenance 
to  the  theory  that  Congress  has  anything  to  do  with  diplomatic 
correspondence. 

Apparently  President  Grant's  protest  in  regard'  to  closing  the 
diplomatic  offices  had  borne  good  fruit,  for  there  was  no  discussion 
of  the  veto  in  the  present  case.  The  message  was  referred  immedi- 
ately to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

§  25.  Vetoes  for  the  protection  of  the  President's  power  of  ap- 
pointment. —  Among  the  cases  of  legislative  encroachment  in  for- 
eign affairs  which  have  just  been  examined,  the  protest  against  the 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  112.  2  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Art.  2,  Sec.  3. 

8  The  Secretary  of  State  is  to  "  perform  and  execute  such  duties  as  shall  from  time 
to  time  be  enjoined  or  entrusted  to  him  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  agreeable 
to  the  Constitution,  relative  to  correspondence,  commissions,  or  instructions  to  or  with 
public  ministers  or  consuls  from  the  United  States,  or  to  negotiations  with  public  minis- 
ters from  foreign  states  or  princes,  or  to  memorials  or  other  applications  from  foreign 
public  ministers  or  other  foreigners,  or  to  such  other  matters  respecting  foreign  affairs  as 
the  President  of  the  United  States  sliall  assign  said  department :  And  furthermore  the 
said  principal  officer  (Secretary  of  State)  shall  conduct  the  business  of  the  said  depart- 
ment in  such  manner  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  from  time  to  time  order 
or  instruct."  —  i  United  States  Stats,  at  Large,  28. 


4O  Veto  Power  :  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iii. 

closing  of  the  consular  offices  would  seem  also  to  relate  to  the 
power  of  appointment.  But  it  did  not.  The  objectionable  bill 
did  not  attempt  to  appoint  any  one  to  an  office,  nor  to  provide  for 
the  manner  of  appointment,  nor  to  remove  any  one  from  an  office. 
What  the  bill  proposed  was  to  close  the  office  itself ;  a  principle 
which  could  not  be  applied  as  a  general  one  without  stopping  the 
wheels  of  government  altogether. 

In  a  number  of  other  instances,  however,  the  President  has 
been  obliged  directly  to  protect  from  an  overbearing  Congress 
his  right  of  appointing  to  office.  The  first  case  we  have  already 
considered  in  the  examination  of  President  Madison's  veto  of  the 
act  increasing  the  number  of  United  States  district  judges.1  That 
bill  in  reality  appointed  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  the 
new  district  judgeship,  and  was  thus  an  unintentional  but  never- 
theless an  undeniable  infringement  of  executive  power. 

§  26.  Requiring  names  of  candidates  for  appointment.  —  The 
next  Congressional  attempt  at  usurpation  was  in  President  Tyler's 
administration.  On  February  21,  1842,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives passed  a  resolution  requesting  the  President  and  heads  of 
the  various  departments  to  furnish  the  House  with  lists  of  the 
names  of  the  members  of  the  twenty-sixth  and  twenty-seventh 
Congresses  who  had  been  applicants  for  office.2  The  President 
refused  to  comply  with  the  request.  This  refusal  is  of  course  in 
no  sense  a  veto,  since  resolutions  passed  by  only  one  of  the  two 
houses  of  Congress  do  not  require  the  President's  approval.  In 
the  present  case,  however,  the  refusal  of  the  President  to  comply 
with  the  resolution  defeated  it  more  effectually  than  a  veto  could 
have  defeated  a  bill,  since  the  resolution  could  not  by  any  majority 
be  made  effective  against  the  refusal. 

The  President  supported  his  action  on  the  ground  that  the  power 
of  appointment  was  conferred  on  him  without  reserve  or  qualifica- 
tion, and  that  therefore  the  House  of  Representatives  had  no  con- 
stitutional right  to  make  its  request.  It  would  seem  that  in  making 
this  statement  the  President  must  have  meant  the  power  of  nomi- 
nation instead  of  the  power  of  appointment,  since  it  could  hardly 
be  maintained  that  the  Senate  had  no  share  in  the  appointment  of 
those  officers  whose  confirmation  depended  upon  the  consent  of 
the  Senate.8 

1  Ante,  §  II. 

2  Appendix  B,  No.  3;   House  Journal,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  421. 
8  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Art.  II,  Sec.  2,  §  2. 


§§  25-27.]  Nominations  to  Office.  41 

But  even  if  we  suppose  President  Tyler  to  have  meant  what  he 
said,  his  argument  is  forcible  ;  for  under  no  circumstance  could  the 
House  have  a  share  in  the  power  of  appointment  to  office.  The 
power  was  vested  solely  with  the  President  and  Senate,  and  so 
long  as  legal  proceedings  of  impeachment  were  not  pending,  any 
body  of  citizens  would  have  as  much  right  as  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives to  inquire  into  the  reasons  for  an  appointment.  But  if 
we  suppose  President  Tyler  referred  to  nominations  instead  of  to 
appointments,  the  case  becomes  stronger  yet ;  for  even  the  Senate 
has  no  right  to  call  upon  the  executive  for  his  reasons  in  nominat- 
ing a  certain  man.  It  can  refuse  to  confirm  the  nominee,  but  that 
is  the  limit  of  its  power. 

If  the  call  for  information  about  nominations  would  have  had 
no  force,  the  request  of  the  House  was  even  more  unjustifiable, 
since  it  called  for  the  names  of  those  who  had  applied  to  the  Presi- 
dent for  office,  whether  they  were  nominated  by  him  or  not.  The 
fact  that  the  resolution  verged  on  the  ridiculous  was  appreciated 
by  some  of  the  representatives ;  for,  in  the  debate  pending  its 
adoption,  various  amendments  were  offered,  each  one  of  which 
enlarged  the  scope  of  the  proposal.  The  last  of  these  amendments 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Snyder,  and  was  to  the  effect  that  the  Presi- 
dent be  requested  to  state  whether  or  not  he  slept  in  a  four-post 
bed.1  This  amendment  was  gravely  voted  down,  but  it  certainly 
had  as  broad  a  basis  of  constitutional  right  as  the  original  reso- 
lution. 

§  27.  Requiring  papers  relative  to  removals  from  office.  —  Closely 
akin  to  the  question  just  considered  is  the  controversy  which  arose 
between  President  Cleveland  and  the  Senate  in  regard  to  removals 
from  office. 

In  July,  1885,  George  M.  Dustin,  United  States  District  Attor- 
ney for  the  Seventh  District  of  Alabama,  was  removed  by  the 
President,  and  John  D.  Burnett  designated  to  perform  the  duties 
of  the  office.  When  the  question  of  Burnett's  confirmation  came 
up  in  January,  1886,  the  Senate  called  on  the  Attorney  General 
for  all  the  papers  filed  in  the  Department  of  Justice  relative  to 
the  removal  of  Dustin.2  The  Attorney  General  at  the  direction 
of  the  President  refused  this  request,  and  pointed  out  that  the 

1  Niles,  Register,  LXII,  61. 

2  Congressional  Record,  49  Cong.,  I  sess.,  1585. 


4^  Veto  Power:  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  ill 

Senate  already  had  all  the  papers  relating  to  the  nomination  of 
Burnett.1 

The  Senate  criticised  the  President's  position  severely.2  It  was 
maintained  that  the  papers  were  essential  to  the  decision  of  the 
question  as  to  whether  a  nomination  was  necessary ;  that  letters 
to  public  officers  in  their  public  capacity  are  official  papers.  In 
short,  it  was  held  that  the  Senate  had  the  right  to  call  for  and 
should  receive  any  papers  on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  Depart- 
ments, and  that  therefore  the  President's  position  was  untenable. 

The  President,  on  the  other  hand,  declared  that  the  papers  in 
question,  although  on  file  in  the  Pepartment  of  Justice,  were 
private,  and  therefore  not  subject  to  the  call  of  the  Senate.  The 
President  then  took -up  the  real  question  at  issue,  and  denied  in  a 
most  emphatic  manner  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  "  review  or  re- 
verse the  act  of  the  executive  in  the  suspension  during  the  recess 
of  the  Senate  of  federal  officials."3 

The  decision  of  the  dispute  must  turn  on  the  question  last 
touched  upon.  Can  the  Senate  "  review  or  reverse  "  the  suspen- 
sion of  federal  officials  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate  ?  It  would 
seem  that  it  cannot.  For  when  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act  was 
amended  in  1869,  the  suspension  of  officials  during  the  recess  was 
left  i^holly  to  the  discretion  of  the  President,  and  the  provision 
requiring  him  to  report  to  the  Senate  the  evidence  and  reason  for 
bis  action  was  abandoned.4  Under  these  circumstances  the  Senate 
had  no  right  to  demand  the  papers  relative  to  the  suspension  of 
Dustin,  and  the  President  in  refusing  the  request  was;  only  defend- 
ing his  legal  and  constitutional  rights. 

§  28.  The  Tenure  of  Office  Act.  —  In  President  Johnson's  admin- 
istration arose  a  much  more  serious  question  with  reference  to  the 
power  of  appointment.  President  Johnson  had  always  advocated 
rotation  in  office  in  its  most  flagrant  form,5  and  when  he  came  into 
power  he  used  the  patronage  of  the  government  to  destroy  the 
political  organization  which  had  placed  him  in  power,  but  which 
was  not  willing  to  accept  his  policy.  In  the  summer  of  1866  he 
openly  defied  Congress,  and  declared  that  he  would  "kick  out" 
the  office-holders  hostile  to  him  as  fast  as  he  could.6  Congress 
and  the  country  felt  that  something  must  be  done,  and,  after  re- 

1  Congressional  Record,  49  Cong.,  I  sess.,  1585.  2  Ibid.         8  Ibid.,  1902-1903. 

4  1 6  Stats,  at  Large,  6. 

5, Miss  Salmon,  Appointing  Power  of  the  President,  89.  6  Ibid.,  89,  note. 


§§  27-29-]  Removals  from  Office.  43 

jecting  the  Civil  Service  Bill,  offered  by  Mr.  Jenckes  of  Rhode 
Island,  passed  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act.1  This  bill  abandoned 
the  past  policy  of  the  government,  and  provided  that  in  all  cases 
where  the  confirmation  of  the  Senate  was  required,  no  removal 
could  be  jnade  by  the  President  without  the  approval  of  the  Senate. 

President  Johnson's  veto  was  based  on  constitutional  grounds. 
The  President  showed  that  the  First  Congress  had  construed  the 
Constitution  as  conferring  the  power  of  removal  on  the  President 
alone;2  that  Madison  considered  this  to  be  a  correct  construction 
of  the  Constitution  ;  that  Justice  Story  and  Chancellor  Kent  consid- 
ered the  ruling  of  the  First  Congress  binding ;  and  that  Mr.  Web- 
ster, although  opposed  to  removal  by  the  President  alone,  admitted 
"  that  it  was  settled  by  construction,  settled  by  precedent,  settled 
by  the  practice  of  the  government,  and  settled  by  statute."  The 
President's  position  was  perfectly  sound,  from  a  constitutional 
point  of  view,  and  his  argument  was  of  great  weight.  The  fact 
was  that  Congress,  in  attacking  President  Johnson's  notoriously 
flagrant  abuse  of  power,  had  attacked  it  from  the  wrong  direction. 
If  Mr.  Jenckes'  measure  had  been  adopted,  the  President  would 
have  had  no  constitutional  arguments  to  oppose  to  it.3 

Congress  was  in  no  mood  to  be  opposed,  however,  and  in 
spite  of  the  President's  logic,  passed  the  bill  over  his  veto.4 

§  29.  The  Fitz-John  Porter  Bill.  —  The  last  of  the  vetoes  for  the 
protection  of  the  power  of  appointment,  like  the  first  one  in  the 
class,  frustrated  action  which  was  much  like  an  actual  appointment 
to  office  on  the  part  of  Congress.  The  bill  was  entitled  "  An  act 
for  the  relief  of  Fitz-John  Porter,"  and  it  was  vetoed  by  President 
Arthur  July  2,  i884.5  The  bill  authorized  the  President  to  appoint 
Porter  to  his  old  position  as  Colonel  in  the  Army. 

One  of  the  reasons  for  the  veto  was  that  the  measure  was  an 
infringement  of  the  executive  power  of  appointment.  It  is  uncon- 
stitutional for  Congress  to  authorize  the  President  to  make  any 

1  Senate  Journal,  39  Cong.,  2  sess.,  423;   14  Stats,  at  Large,  430. 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  I  Cong.,  I  sess.,  368-383. 

8  Mr.  Jenckes'  Bill  would  have  prevented  the  appointment  of  unfit  men,  but  would 
have  left  the  President's  power  of  removal  untouched.  —  Miss  Salmon,  Appointing  Power 
of  the  President,  90. 

4  Appendix  A,  No.  62.     The  act  was  partially  repealed  in  1869,  and  wholly  repealed 
in  1887.     It  has  generally  been  considered  both  inexpedient  and  unconstitutional. 

5  Appendix  A,  No.  132.     Porter  had  been  cashiered  by  court-martial  in  1863  for 
alleged  insubordination. 


44  Veto  Powers :  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  Hi. 

appointment.  The  Constitution  gives  the  President  power  to  make 
appointments  to  certain  offices  which  it  names,  as  well  as  to  all 
others  not  otherwise  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  which  shall 
be  established  by  law.  The  only  limit  on  this  power  is  the  pro- 
vision that  "  Congress  may  by  law  vest  the  appointment  of  such 
inferior  officers  as  they  think  proper  in  the  President  alone,  in  the 
Courts  of  the  law,  or  in  the  heads  of  the  departments."  l  Congress 
is  omitted  from  this  carefully  enumerated  list  of  possible  possess- 
ors of  appointing  power,  and,  in  consequence,  cannot  legally  claim 
such  power.  To  be  sure,  in  the  bill  under  discussion  Congress 
merely  authorized  the  President  to  appoint,  and  did  not  assume 
to  make  the  appointment  or  even  to  command  the  President 
to  make  it.  The  bill  was,  however,  an  attempt  to  ensure  the 
appointment  of  Porter  to  his  old  position,  and  this  attempt  was  in 
spirit,  if  not  technically,  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.2 

§  30.  Protest  for  the  protection  of  the  President's  war  power.  — 
The  President  "has  been  obliged  to  defend  his  power  in  foreign 
affairs  and  his  power  of  appointment  by  the  use  of  the  veto.  Still 
another  executive  power  has  been  attacked  by  Congress  and 
defended  by  the  President.  This  is  the  War  Power.  In  1867, 
Congress  passed  an  act  making  appropriations  for  the  army,  to 
which  was  tacked  a  rider 3  practically  depriving  the  President  of 
his  power  as  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army.4  The  President 
signed  the  bill  on  account  of  the  urgent  need  for  the  appropriation, 
but  he  sent  to  Congress  a  vigorous  protest  against  the  rider.5 

Here,  as  in  the  veto  of  the  Tenure  of  Office  bill,  Johnson  had 
the  Constitution  on  his  side.  That  instrument  says  clearly  that 
"  the  President  shall  be  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy 
of  the  United  States."  G  Congress  has  no  voice  in  the  matter.  It 
can  appoint  no  one  but  the  President  Commander-in-chief,  and  can 
withdraw  from  him  not  the  slightest  part  of  the  power  pertaining 
to  the  office.7  The  only  remedy  for  a  misuse  of  the  power  is  an 
impeachment. 

1  Constitution  of  United  States,  Art.  II,  Sec.  2,  §  2. 

2  The  bill  also  relieved  Porter  of  his  disabilities.     This  side  of  the  measure  will  be 
referred  to  in  §  68. 

8  14  United  States  Stats,  at  Large,  487. 

*  The  act  provided  that  all  orders  should  be  given  through  the  commanding  general, 
then  General  Grant. 

5  Appendix  B,  No.  6. 

6  Art.  II,  Sec.  2,  §  I.  7  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  Law,  192. 


§§  29-33-]          •      War  Powers.    Covode  Investigation.  45 

§  31.  Protest  and  veto  for  the  protection  of  the  President's  per- 
sonal rights  under  the  Constitution.  —  Congress,  besides  infringing 
the  powers  of  the  executive  in  foreign  affairs,  over  appointments 
and  over  the  Army  and  Navy,  has,  in  two  instances,  attempted  to 
deprive  the  President  of  what  might  be  called  his  personal  rights 
under  the  Constitution. 

§  32.  Covode  Investigation.  —  The  first  of  these  attempts 
occurred  in  President  Buchanan's  administration  and  was  met  by 
a  protest.  The  affair  is  known  as  the  Covode  investigation,  and 
was  based  on  a  resolution  appointing  a  committee  to  see  if  the 
President  had,  "  by  money  patronage  or  improper  means,  sought  to 
influence  the  action  of  Congress,  9r  any  committee  thereof,  for  or 
against  the  passage  of  any  law  appertaining  to  the  rights  of  any 
State  or  Territory."  1  The  friends  of  the  measure  upheld  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  but  an  exercise  of  the  power  which  the  House 
of  Representatives  possessed  in  the  matter  of  impeachment.  The 
President  pointed  out  in  his  protest 2  that,  with  the  exception  of 
the  power  of  impeachment,  the  Constitution  vests  the  House  of 
Representatives  with  no  jurisdiction  over  the  President,  and  that 
in  such  proceedings  all  precedents  demanded  the  presenta- 
tion of  particular  charges,  and  an  open  and  impartial  investigation 
of  those  charges.  In  the  Covode  Investigation  the  accusations 
were  of  the  vaguest  possible  character,  and  the  investigation  was 
conducted  by  an  ex  parte  committee  in  secret  session.  In  view 
of  these  facts,  the  protest  seems  justified ;  and  this  conclusion  is 
strengthened  when  we  consider  that  the  resolution  calling  for  the 
investigation  was  rushed  through  the  House  under  cover  of  the 
previous  question,  that  no  attempts  to  point  out  the  lack  of  specific 
charges  were  allowed  to  succeed,  that  the  accuser  was  made  one  of 
the  judges,  and  that  the  evidence  was  taken  in  an  unfair  way.  It 
was,  in  short,  little  more  than  a  scheme  to  inculpate  the  adminis- 
tration and  render  it  odious  before  the  country.3 

§  33.  The  President's  salary.  —  One  other  attempt  to  encroach 
upon  what  I  have  called  the  personal  rights  of  the  executive  is  to 
be  noticed.  On  April  18,  1876,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  to 
reduce  the  President's  salary  from  $50,000  to  its  old  figure, — 

1  Congressional  Globe,  39  Cong.,  I  sess.,  1437. 

2  Appendix  B,  No.  4;  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53, 
274. 

8  Curtis,  Life  of  Buchanan,  248. 


46  Veto  Power:  —  Distribution  of  Powers.-  [Ch.  m. 

$25,000.  *  The  bill  was  an  avowed  attempt  at  reform,  —  a  return 
to  the  former  simplicity  of  the  government, — and  was  brought  for- 
ward, largely  for  party  purposes,  not  long  before  a  national  elec- 
tion. The  President  vetoed  the  bill 2  because  the  salary  as  fixed 
by  the  measure  was  insufficient  to  support  the  office  of  chief  execu- 
tive of  a-  great  nation  with  becoming  dignity.  He  argued  that 
$25,000  was  enough  at  the  beginning  of  the  government,  when  the 
nation  numbered  only  three  millions  of  people  and  when  the  coun- 
try had  not  yet  recovered  from  a  long  and  exhausting  war ;  but 
since  that  time  the  size  and  dignity  of  the  country  and  the  needs 
of  the  office  had  greatly  increased,  and  now  $50,000  was  not  too 
much.  The  good  sense  of  the  country  has  approved  the  President's 
position,  and  no  serious  attempt  has  since  been  made  to  reduce  the 
President's  salary. 

§  34.  Use  of  the  veto  in  Controversies  on  questions  arising  out 
of  the  Civil  War.3  —  In  the  discussion  of  the  veto  as  a  protection 
to  the  executive,  one  class  of  vetoes  remains  for  special  considera- 
tion, namely,  the  vetoes  of-  measures  which  grew  out  of  the  Civil 
War.  Some  of  these  vetoes  have  already  been  considered  under 
other  heads.  Here  it  becomes  necessary  to  determine  what  bearing 
the  questions  raised  had  on  the  mutual  relations  of  the  executive 
and  legislative  branches  of  the  government. 

The  reconstruction  vetoes  claim  our  attention  first.4  President 
Johnson  had  a  definite  plan  with  regard  to  reconstruction.  He 
desired  to  have  the  Rebel  States  readmitted  into  the  Union  at 
once,  and  on  their  former  footing.5  Congress  objected  for  two 

1  The  increase  was  made  in  1 873  by  a  rider  tacked  to  the  legislative  appropriation  bill. 
The  rider  also  increased  the  salaries  of  Congressmen,  and  was  known  as  the  "  Salary  Grab." 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  99. 

3  Two  vetoes  which  are  connected  with  the  later  reconstruction  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment should  be  mentioned  at  this  point.     They  both  apply  to  the  United  States  laws 
covering  Southern  elections,  and  occurred  in  President  Hayes's  administration.    The  first 
veto  was  of  a  bill  to  prohibit  military  interference  at  elections  (Appendix  A,  No.  121). 
President  Hayes  objected  to  it  because  it  would  prevent  the  exercise  of  force  necessary 
at  times  to  support  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  (see  §  35).     The  other 
vetoed  bill  was  entitled  "  an  act  regulating  the  pay  and  appointment  of  deputy  marshals  " 
(Appendix  A,  No.  127).     Under  the  guise  of  regulating  the  appointment  of  these  officers 
the  act  took  from  them  the  power  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  preserve  order  and  pre- 
vent fraud  at  elections.     For  this  reason  the  President  refused  to  sign  the  bill  (see  §  35). 

4  The  bills  discussed  here  can  be  found  in  Appendix  A,  numbered  as  follows :  53,  54, 
57,  59,  62,  63,  64,  65,  66,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72.      The  important  measures  are  elsewhere 
considered  according  to  subject  matter. 

6  Conkling,  Executive  Powers,  76;  McPherson,  Reconstruction,  45-100  passim; 
Callender,  Stevens,  111-112,  123;  Wilson,  Slave  Power,  III,  590-602,  614. 


§§  33-35-3  Reconstruction  Measures.    Riders.  47 

reasons  :  in  the  first  place,  it  had  a  plan  of  its  own  which  it  very 
much  preferred ;  and  in  the  second  place,  rather  as  a  corollary  to 
the  first  reason,  Congress  disapproved  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
President  attempted  to  carry  out  his  scheme.  Congress  claimed 
that  the  President  acted  in  an  unconstitutional  manner,  and  the 
President  abusively  charged  Congress  with  proceeding  in  an  uncon- 
stitutional manner.  Congress  passed  act  after  act  in  furtherance 
of  its  plan,  acts  which  were  regularly  vetoed,  and  almost  as  regu- 
larly passed  over  the  veto.  The  President  called  hard  names,  and 
strove  to  carry  out  his  plan  by  means  of  proclamations  and  execu- 
tive orders  to  the  Army,  the  effect  of  which  Congress  counteracted. 

No  ordinary  rules  of  judgment  can  be  applied  to  these  discus- 
sions, since  the  circumstances  were  abnormal  and  wholly  unfore- 
seen by  the  founders  of  the  government ;  measures  were  needed 
for  which  neither  constitutional  provisions  nor  precedent  could  be 
cited.  The  plan  proposed  by  President  Johnson  seems  more  in 
accord  with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  although  less  prac- 
tical, than  the  Congressional  plan. 

In  so  far  as  the  veto  was  used  in  this  contest,  it  cannot  be  said 
to  have  been  used  to  defend  the  President  from  unconstitutional 
attack,  save  in  the  case  of  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act.1  Incidentally 
he  was  deprived  of  his  command  over  the  army2  and  his  power  of 
appointment.  But  in  the  contest  over  the  main  question,  that  of 
reconstruction,  none  of  the  President's  rights  under  the  Constitu- 
tion were  touched. 

§  35.  Riders  on  appropriation  bills.  —  At  one  Other  period  in 
our  history  questions  arising  out  of  the  Rebellion  have  called  for 
the  use  of  the  veto  to  protect  executive  power.  In  this  case  the 
veto  was  used  for  its  own  protection ;  that  is,  for  the  protection  of 
the  President's  right  to  refuse  to  sign  a  bill. 

The  law  of  1865  provided  that  troops  might  be  used  at  the  polls 
on  election  days  to  repel  armed  enemies  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  keep  the  peace.3  The  election  law  of  1870,  as  amended  February 
28,  1871,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  two  supervisors  of  elec- 
tions in  each  election  district  or  voting  precinct.  These  supervis- 
ors were  to  be  appointed  by  the  Federal  circuit  judges  and  were 
personally  to  count  each  ballot.4 

1  Ante,  §  28.  2  Ante,  §  30. 

8  Rev.  Stats.,  §§  2002,  5528.  4  16  Stats,  at  Large,  434. 


48  Veto  Power:  —  Distribution  of  Powers.  [Ch.  \\\. 

The  Democrats  disliked  this  legislation,  and  opposed  it  un- 
successfully in  Congress.  In  time  they  got  control  of  that 
body  and  at  once  set  about  the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  laws. 
President  Hayes  was  opposed  to  the  undertaking, ,  and  Con- 
gress therefore  attempted  to  accomplish  its  purpose  by  means 
of  riders.1 

A  rider  was  attached  to  the  Army  appropriation  bill  of  1878, 
taking  away  from  the  government  the  right  to  employ  the  Army 
as  a  posse  comitatus?  The  President  signed  this  bill,  and  embold- 
ened by  success,  Congress  redoubled  its  efforts.  Within  a  short 
time  five  appropriation  bills  were  furnished  with  riders,  whose 
object  was  the  repeal  of  the  objectionable  election  laws.3  But  they 
did  not  meet  with  the  success  which  attended  the  first  one.  In 
short,  they  were  all  vetoed. 

The  President  vetoed  the  measures  on  the  ground  that  the  Con- 
stitution had  granted  the  executive  the  privilege  of  refusing  his 
sanction  to  Congressional  proposals,  and  that  he  would  not  allow 
Congress  to  brow-beat  him  out  of  his  privilege.  It  was  a  bold  step 
to  take,  for  riders  had  been  very  numerous  in  the  years  since  the 
war,  and  had  come  to  be  considered  almost  as  a  matter  of  course.4 
The  President's  position  was,  however,  constitutionally  sound.  He 
was  brave  enough  to  stand  by  his  convictions,  and  the  fact  that 
his  opponents  did  not  have  a  two-thirds  majority  in  Congress  gave 

1  The  practice  of  attaching  riders  to  appropriation  bills  and  other  important  meas- 
ures began  in  1820,  when  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  was  "  tacked  "  to  the  bill 
for  the  admission  of  Maine.     In  1849  the  Senate  tacked  to  an  appropriation  bill  a  clause 
extending  the  Constitution  and  Revenue  laws  to  the  newly-acquired  Mexican  territory. 
This  attempt  at  coercion  failed.     In  1856  the  House  tacked  a  provision  to  an  Army  ap- 
propriation bill,  forbidding  the  use  of  -Federal  troops  for  the  enforcement  of  territorial  law 
in  Kansas.     The  Senate  refused  to  be  coerced,  and  Congress  adjourned  without  passing 
any  Army  appropriation.     An  extra  session  was  called,  in  which  the  House  yielded  and 
passed  an  Army  appropriation  bill  without  the  rider.     These  early  riders  were  attempts 
by  one  house  of  Congress  to  coerce  the  other.     In  President  Johnson's  administration 
riders  were  first  prominently  used  to  coerce  the  President.     They  have  been  exceedingly 
numerous  in  the  last  twenty-five  years.     The  most  important  were :  the  rider  depriving 
President  Johnson  of  the  war  power ;  Senator  Kellogg's  rider  providing  for  Federal  super- 
visors of  elections  (1872);   "the  salary  grab"  (1873);   and  the  riders  in  Hayes'  admin- 
istration. —  Horace  Davis,  American  Constitutions  (in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies, 
Third  Series). 

2  20  Stats,  at  Large,  152. 

3  The  bills  will  be  found  in  Appendix  A,  numbered :   1 20,  122,  123,  125,  126. 

*  It  is  said  that  387  riders  were  attached  to  appropriation  bills  between  1862  and 
1875.  —  Davis,  American  Constitutions,  30. 


§§  35>  36-]  Riders.   General  Effect  of  Vetoes.  49 

him  complete  victory.  The  rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  1888-89  forbade  the  "tacking"  of  any  measure  of  general  legis- 
lation to  an  appropriation  bill  unless  it  was  germane  to  the  subject 
of  the  bill. 

§  36.  General  effect  of  the  vetoes  for  the  protection  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive. —  The  veto  power,  as  the  present  chapter  shows,  has  been 
used  many  times,  and  often  successfully,  as  a  defence  to  the  execu- 
tive. The  power  of  the  executive  in  foreign  affairs,  the  power  of 
appointment,  his  power  over  the  Army,  and  lastly  his  power  to 
veto  bills,  have  all  been  asserted  and  maintained  against  legislative 
encroachment. 

In  other  instances,  however,  the  veto  has  not  proved  the 
complete  protection  to  the  President  which  the  Constitutional 
Convention  anticipated.  Mr.  Horace  Davis,  in  his  "American 
Constitutions," *  points  out  three  ways  in  which  Congress  has 
encroached  on  the  executive.  In  the  first  place,  Congress  has 
invaded  the  treaty-making  power,  and,  in  the  face  of  the  Con- 
stitution, abrogated  treaty  provisions  by  statute.2  This  was 
conspicuously  the  case  in  1798,  when  our  treaty  relations  with 
France  were  thus  abrogated.3  Again,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives claims  the  right  to  pass  upon  all  treaties  touching  the  rev- 
enue, by  refusing  the  appropriations  necessary  to  carry  them  into 
effect,  on  the  ground  that  the  House  alone  has  the  right  to  origi- 
nate money  bills.  This  claim  was  acknowledged  in  the  Hawaiian 
Reciprocity  treaty,  in  which  there  was  a  provision  that  the  treaty 
should  not  become  binding  until  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Congress 
to  carry  it  into  effect.4  Both  of  these  claims  Mr.  Davis  considers 
as  invasions  of  the  President's  treaty-making  power,  which  might 
have  been  resisted,  perhaps  successfully,  by  the  veto.  They  were, 
however,  not  resisted,  and  are  probably  both  too  strong  now  to  be 
overthrown. 

In  the  second  place,  Congress  both  directly  and  indirectly  has 
invaded  the  President's  power  of  appointment  to  and  removal  from 
office-.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act  deprived 
the  President  of  power  in  making  removals  which  the  uniform 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution  has  accorded  him.  But  Con- 

1  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Third  Series 

2  In  support  of  this  claim  by  Congress,  see  Taylor  v.  Morton,  2  Curtis,  454. 

3  Davis,  American  Constitutions,  28. 
*  19  Stats,  at  Large,  627. 


50  Veto  Power :  -r—  Distribution  of  Powers.  Ch.  iii. 

gress,  although  powerful  enough  to  seize  this  power  in  spite  of 
the  veto,  has  since  relinquished  it  voluntarily.1 

The  President  by  the  relinquishment  obtained  merely  the 
shadow  of  power,  for  he  had  already  lost  the  substance  through 
the  "courtesy  of  the  Senate."  As  far  back  as  President  Jackson's 
administration  party  leaders  began  to  claim  the  right  to  control 
the  President's  xpower  of  nomination  by  suggesting  suitable  can- 
didates. This  claim  became  stronger,  and  by  President  Johnson's 
time  it  was  looked  upon  as  an  undoubted  right,  so  that  nominations 
were  practically  made,  not  by  the  President,  but  by  the  Senators, 
and  even  by  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

It  is  clear  that  an  invasion  of  the  President's  power  in  regard 
to  nominations  to  office  cannot  be  reached  by  the  veto.  It  must 
be  met,  if  at  all,  by  the  sturdy  refusal  of  the  President  to  submit 
to  dictation  in  the  matter.  It  has  been  met  in  that  way.  Presi- 
dent Hayes  refused  to  listen  to  Senatorial  dictation ; 2  President 
Garfield's  contest  with  the  New  York  Senators  over  the  "  courtesy 
of  the  Senate  "  is  famous,  and  President  Harrison  is  at  the  present 
time  showing  a  commendable  independence  in  making  appoint- 
ments not  approved  by  Senators  of  the  states  in  which  they  are 
made. 

Congress  has  encroached  upon  the  executive  in  one  other  way, 
namely,  in  forcing  him  to  sign  bills  of  which  he  did  not  approve, 
by  tacking  them  as  riders  to  appropriation  bills.  This  assump- 
tion of  executive  power,  and  President  Hayes's  successful  resist- 
ance of  it,  we  have  just  considered. 

Practically,  then,  Congress  has  succeeded  in  partially  usurping  ', 
only  one  of  the  President's  powers,  that  of  making  treaties ;  and 
even  in  this  case  the  veto  might  have  been  successfully  used.  The 
record  forcibly  demonstrates  the  wisdom  and  foresight  of  the 
founders  of  the  Constitution,  in  their  expectation  that  the  veto 
would  be  an  efficient  instrument  in  maintaining  the  balance  of 
power  between  the  executive  and  legislative  departments. 

1  The  act  was  finally  repealed  March  3,  1887.     See  24  Stats,  at  Large,  500. 

2  Davis,  American  Constitutions,  40. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

VETOES  AFFECTING  THE  EXERCISE    OF  THE  POWERS 
OF  GOVERNMENT. 

§  37.  Classification. 

§  38.    Relation  of  the  national  government  to  individuals. 
§  39-   Question  of  the  establishment  of  religion. 
§  40.   Naturalization. 
§  41.  The  Indians. 
§  42.   The  Negro. 
§  43.  The  Chinese. 

§  44.   General  remarks  on  the  power  over  individuals. 
§  45.   Territorial  powers.     District  of  Columbia. 
§  46.    Early  land  vetoes. 

§  47.   Public  lands  and  the  Constitution.     Land  grants. 
§  48.   Later  land  vetoes  on  grounds  of  expediency. 
§  49.    Effect  of  the  public  land  vetoes. 
§  50.   Admission  of  States. 

§51.   Criticism  of  the  Colorado  and  Nebraska  vetoes. 
§  52.   Financial  powers. 
§  53.   The  tariff. 
§  54.    Refunding  the  direct  tax. 
§  55.   Bank  charter  vetoes. 

§  56.    Madison's  Bank  veto. 
§  57.   Jackson's  Bank  veto. 
§  58.  Tyler's  Bank  veto. 
§  59.   Criticism  of  Bank  vetoes. 
§  60.   Currency  and  coinage. 
§  61.   Inflation  Bill. 
§  62.   The  Bland  Silver  Bill. 
§  63.   Expenditure  of  public  money. 
§  64.   French  spoliation  claims. 
§  65.   Relief  bills. 

§  66.   Bills  defrauding  the  government  of  money. 
§  67.   Bills  relieving  deserters  from  the  army. 
§  68.   Bills  relieving  former  army  officers  of  disability. 
§  69.   Bills  carelessly  drawn. 
§  70.   Miscellaneous  relief  bills. 
§  71.   Pension  vetoes. 

§  72.   Bills  conveying  no  benefit. 

§  73.   Unnecessary  increase  of  pensions. 

§  74.    Injuries  not  received  "  in  the  line  of  duty." 

§  75.   Dependent  relatives:  dependency  not  proved. 

[51] 


52  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

§  76.    Miscellaneous  pension  bills. 
§  77.    Dependent  Pension  Bill. 
§  78.    President  Cleveland's  pension  policy. 
§  79.    Expediency  of  the  pension  vetoes. 
§  80.   Constitutionality  of  the  pension  vetoes. 
§  81.    Summary  of  the  question  of  pension  vetoes. 
§  82.    Commercial  powers. 

§  83.    Internal  improvements. 

§  84.    Madison's  veto  of  a  general  bill. 

§  85.    Monroe's  Cumberland  Road  veto.    Constitutionality  of  improve- 
ments. 

§  86.   Jackson's  vetoes.     Jurisdiction  and  local  character. 
§  87.   Tyler's  vetoes.     Improvement  of  water-ways. 
§  88.    Folk's  vetoes.    Local  improvements. 
§  89.    Pierce's  vetoes.     Implied  powers. 
§  90.   Buchanan's  vetoes.     Constitutional  grounds. 
§  91.   Grant's  veto  and  refusal  to  carry  out  a  bill. 
§  92.   Arthur's  veto.    Local  objects. 
§  93.    Public  buildings. 

§  94.   General  view  of  internal  improvement  vetoes. 
§  95.   Measures  based  on  the  general  welfare  clause. 

§  96.   Texas  Seed  Bill. 
§  97.   War  powers. 
§  98.   General  effect  of  the  veto  on  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  government. 

§  37.  Classification.  —  The  vetoes  affecting  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment may  conveniently  be  subdivided  into  two  classes  :  those  relat- 
ing to  the  distribution  of  powers,  and  those  relating  to  the  exercise 
of  powers.  In  the  last  chapter  the  first  of  these  two  divisions  was 
considered ;  the  second  and  more  important  claims  our  attention 
in  the  present  chapter. 

In  order  to  trace  the  connection  between  the  vetoes  of  the  suc- 
cessive Presidents  it  is  necessary  to  classify  them,  according  to 
the  nature  of  the  power  claimed  or  exercised,  into  six  sections, 
i.  The  vetoes  which  affect  the  government's  power  over  individu- 
als. 2.  Vetoes  which  concern  the  exercise  of  the  territorial  powers 
of  the  government.  3  and  4.  Vetoes  which  involve  the  financial 
and  commercial  powers  of  the  government.  5.  Vetoes  of  meas- 
ures based  upon  the  general  welfare  clause.  6.  Vetoes  which  affect 
the  war  power  of  Congress. 

§  38.  Relation  of  the  national  government  to  individuals.  — 
Although  the  United  States  is  a  Federal  government,  it  exercises 
authority  over  all  individuals  in  the  States.  It  recognizes  and 
protects  certain  rights  of  all  persons,  and  has  special  powers  over 
certain  specified  classes  of  persons.  Thus  the  Constitution  guaran- 


§§  37-39-]  Individuals.     Religion.  53 

tees  personal  and  religious  liberty,  a  guaranty  which  Congress 
must  enforce.  Again,  the  Indians  are  subject  exclusively  to  the 
control  of  the  Federal  government,  and  the  important  matters  of 
naturalization  and  immigration  have  also  been  placed  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  rather  than  within  that  of  the 
States.  In  the  exercise  of  the  duties  imposed  by  or  implied  in 
these  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  the  government  at  Washing- 
ton is  brought  directly  in  contact  with  the  people,  and  oftentimes 
in  our  history  the  veto  has  been  used  to  check  Congress  in  what 
the  executive  considered  an  unconstitutional  or  unwise  use  of  this 
power  over  the  individual. 

§  39.    Question  of  the  establishment  of  religion.  —  _Early  in  178^ 
brought  up  in  Congress  the  question  of  the  amend- 


ments to  the  Constitution,  which  the  people  demanded  as  sureties 
,tor  their  hbeTtigS/1  tseiore  the  year  1791  ten  amendments  had 
become  parts  of  the  Constitution.  The  first  of  these  declares 
that  "  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of 
religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof."  The  amend- 
ment was  passed  by  men  keenly  alive  to  the  dangers  of  an  intol- 
erant and  powerful  state  church.  It  was  meant  to  be  a  guaranty 
of  religious  liberty  to  every  individual  in  the  nation. 

In  two  instances  President  Madison  made  use  of  the  veto  to 
protect  the  first  amendment.  February  21.  1811.  he  vetoed  a_ 
foil  entitled.  ^An  art  inrnrporating  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  town  of  Alexandria  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia." 2  In  so  far  as  the  act  was  merely  for  the  incorporation  of 
the  church  it  was  constitutional  since  in  no  other  way  couldji. 
charter  be  obtained  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  gut  the  bill  went 
jeyond  the  limits  of  an  incorporating  act,  and  established  certain 
unnecessary  rules  which  related  purely  to  the  organization  and 
lx)licv  of  the  church.  The  measure  was  therefore  vetoed. 

The  President's  position  seems  sound.  The  bill  gave  legal  force 
and  sanction  to  certain  provisions  of  the  constitution  and  adminis- 
tration of  the  church  which  the  simple  incorporation  of  the  church 
did  not  require.  It  was,  therefore,  in  so  far  as  it  exceeded  the 
necessities  of  the  case,  a  law  "  respecting  the  establishment  of  re- 
ligion," and  consequently  a  violation  of  the  first  amendment. 

When  the  President's  message  came  up  for  consideration  in  the 

1  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  102. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  3. 


54  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

House,  very  little,  was  said.  Mr.  Wheaton,  in  support  of  the  bill, 
declared  it  to  be  constitutional,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  merely 
a  regulation  of  the  funds  of  a  religious  society.1  This  argument 
seems  hardly  more  than  the  question  at  issue  stated  in  a  different 
form,  and  therefore  can  have.no  weight. 

February  28,  1811,  President  Madison  withheld  his  assent  from 
a  bill  entitled  "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  ...  the  Baptist  Church 
at  Salem  Meeting-House  in  the  Mississippi  Territory."2  The 
President  vetoed  the  bill  because  it  reserved  a  portion  of  the  land 
of  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the  Baptist  Church.  This  he 
considered  a  "  principle  and  precedent "  for  the  appropriation  of 
the  funds  of  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  religious  societies, 
which  would  be  contrary  to  the  first  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

Since  1811  there  has  been  no  attempt  by  Congress  to  link 
church  and  state  together.  Indeed,  the  two  bills  above  described 
were  not  intended  to  have  such  an  effect.  President  Madison  was 
nevertheless  wise  in  preventing  what  might  have  been  used  after- 
wards as  a  confusing  or  dangerous  precedent.  For  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  our  Constitution  is  a  written  one,  custom  and  precedent 
j  have  a  great  influence  upon  it. 

§  40.  Naturalization.  —  Under  authority  granted  by  Art.  I, 
Sec.  VIII,  of  the  Constitution,  Congress,  in  1812,  passed  a  bill 
entitled,  "An  act  supplementary , to  the  acts  heretofore  passed 
on  the  subject  of  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization."  The  bill 
reached  the  President  late  in  the  session,  and  he  took  no  action 
upon  it.  It  was  subjected  to  what  later  became  known  as  the 
"pocket  veto."  At  the  next  session  of  Congress  President  Madi- 
son briefly  explained  as  his  reason  for  withholding  his  signature 
from  the  bill,  that  the  privileges  which  it  granted  were  liable  to 
abuse  by  aliens  having  no  real  purpose  of  becoming  naturalized.3 

§  41.  The  Indians.  —  The  Indians  have  always  been  a  trouble- 
some factor  in  the  regulation  of  our  internal  affairs.  The  govern- 
ment has  not  wilfully  wronged  the  Red  man  :  nevertheless,  through 
carelessness,  inefficiency,  and  perhaps,  most  of  all,  through  sheer 
ignorance,  it  has  given  ground  for  the  charge  that  our  treatment  of 
the  Indians  has  been  careless  and  unjust.  The  treatment  is,  to  a 
certain  extent,  reflected  in  the  veto  messages. 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  1 1  Cong.,  3  sess.,  984. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  4. 
»  Ibid.,  No.  6. 


§§  39-41-]  Naturalisation.     Indians.  55 

On  December  29,  1835,  the  Cherokee  Indians  agreed  to  leave 
the  State  of  Georgia  and  move  West,  on  consideration  of  the  pay- 
ment to  them  of  $5, 600, ooo.1  During  the  last  hours  of  the  third 
session  of  the  twenty-seventh  Congress  a  joint  resolution  was 
passed,  directing  the  payment  of  certificates  or  awards  issued  by 
the  commissioners  under  the  treaty  with  the  Cherokee  Indians.2 
President  Tyler  disposed  of  this  resolution  by  a  pocket  veto,  and 
sent  his  reasons  for  so  doing  to  the  next  Congress.  He  disap- 
proved of  the  resolution,  because  it  was  unjust  to  the  Indians. 
Congress  had  not  provided  sufficient  funds  for  satisfying  in  full 
the  claims  which  the  resolution  professed  to  provide  for ;  nor  was 
any  system  of  pro  rata  payment  substituted  for  full  payment.  The 
consequence  would  have  been  that  the  first  claim  presented  would 
have  been  paid,  while  the  claims  last  presented,  although  equally 
entitled  to  consideration,  would  have  gone  unsatisfied.  The  Presi- 
dent prevented  this  injustice,  and  suggested  the  propriety  of  mak- 
ing some  provision  for  a  pro  rata  payment  of  claims :  a  course 
which  would  seem  most  reasonable  since  the  last  of  the  money 
due  under  the  treaty  was  appropriated  by  the  resolve  under 
consideration. 

On  February  3,  1876,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  entitled, 
"An  act  transferring  the  custody  of  certain  Indian  trust  funds 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States."3  The  bill  had  been  drawn  at  the  request  of  the  Interior 
department,  but  it  was  so  carelessly  phrased  that  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  feared  it  would  not  accomplish  the  purpose  desired. 
It  was  therefore  vetoed. 

August  15,  1876,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  entitled,  "An 
act  to  provide  for  the  sale  of  a  portion  of  the  reservation  of  the 
Confederated  Otoe  and  Missouri,  and  the  Sacs  and  Foxes  of  the 
Missouri  tribe  of  Indians,  in  the  States  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska."4 
The  message  was  sent  to  the  Senate,  but  before  any  action  could  I/ 
be  taken  upon  it  a  second  message  was  received  from  the  President, 
requesting  that  the  bill  be  returned  to  him,  in  order  that  he  might 
approve  it.  An  interesting  discussion  then  arose  as  to  the  power 
of  the  President  to  recall  a  veto  message  which  had  been  received 
by  Congress.5  It  was  generally  held  that  the  President  had  no 

1  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  235. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  28.  8  Ibid.,  No.  96.  *  Ibid.,  No.  108. 
6  Congressional  Record,  44  Cong.,  I  sess.,  5664;  see  also/w/,  §  108. 


56  Veto  Power  :  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

power  to  recall  a  veto  when  once  it  had  been  delivered,  and  that 
the  only  effect,  and,  in  fact,  the  intended  effect,  of  the  President's 
second  message  was  to  destroy  the  persuasive  influence  of  the  first 
message, — to  invite  Congress  to  pass  the  bill  over  the  veto.  In 
accordance  with  this  view  the  bill  was  passed  over  the  veto  by 
large  majorities  in  both  houses  of  Congress. 

July  7,  1886,  President  Cleveland  returned  to  the  Senate,  with 
his  objections,  a  bill  entitled,  "An  act  granting  to  railroads  the 
right  of  way  through  the  Indian  reservation  in  Northern  Mon- 
tana."1 The  President  vetoed  the  bill:  first,  because  it  granted 
a  general  right  of  way  to  all  railroad  companies,  regardless  of  the 
needs  of  the  community,  or  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
Indians ;  and  secondly,  because  it  specified  no  limit  of  time  within 
which  the  construction  of  railroads  should  be  begun  or  completed. 
The  door  was  thus  opened  to  a  speculative  occupation  of  the  reser- 
vation, for  an  indefinite  period,  by  corporations  whose  only  object 
would  be  to  sell  the  land  at  some  future  time  to  a  genuine  railroad 
company.  Senator  Dawes,  in  criticising  this  message,  pointed 
out2  that  by  the  treaty  of  October  17,  1855,  the  United  States 
reserved  the  right  to  construct  roads  of  every  description  in  the 
Indian  reservation  in  Northern  Montana.  The  President,  however, 
in  vetoing  the  bill  under  discussion,  recognized  this  fact,  and  based 
his  objection,  not  upon  the  granting  of  a  right  of  way,  but  upon 
the  granting  of  a  right  of  way  in  such  a  loose  manner  that  the 
grant  could  hardly  fail  to  be  abused.  The  Senate  referred  the 
President's  message  to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  no 
further  action  was  taken. 

President  Cleveland,  by  his  veto  of  May  7,  i888,3  justly  inter- 
fered in  a  case  in  which  the  rights  of  the  Indians  had  been  grossly 
violated.  Certain  New  York  Indians  had  been  granted  land  in 
Kansas.  Most  of  the  Indians  were  prevented  by  threats  or  actual 
violence  from  taking  possession  of  their  lands.  Some  of  the  more 
venturesome,  however,  entered  upon  the  land,  but  they  were  speedily 
killed  or  driven  off.  The  white  robbers  then  settled  upon  the  land. 
The  government  professed  to  be  powerless  to  help  its  "wards," 
and  as  the  only  reparation  possible  sold  a  part  of  the  land  in  1873, 
at  the  rate  of  four  dollars  and  a  half  an  acre,  and  turned  the  pro- 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  232. 

2  Congressional  Record,  49  Cong.,  I  sess.,  6613. 
8  Appendix  A,  No.  293. 


§§  41,  42-]  The  Indians  and  the  Negro.  57 

ceeds  over  to  the  Indian  owners.  The  present  bill  authorized  the 
government  to  sell  the  remainder  of  the  land  at  two  dollars  and  a 
half  an  acre.  This  the  President  considered  most  unjust  to  the 
Indian  owners;  the  land  was  certainly  worth  what  it  was  in  1873, 
and  he  accordingly  refused  his  assent  to  the  bill. 

July  26,  1888,  the  President  vetoed  a  bill  granting  a  right  of 
way  to  the  Fort  Smith,  Paris,  and  Dardanelle  Railway  Company, 
through  the  Indian  territory,  on  the  ground  that  the  grant  violated 
the  treaty  rights  of  the  Indians.1 

§  42.  The  Negro.  —  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that,  although  the 
negro  problem  has  been  one  of  great  political  importance  since 
1775,  the  veto  power  has  never  been  employed  directly  either  to 
attack  or  defend  slavery.  The  nearest  approach  to  anything  of  the 
kind  was  the  well-known  determination  of  Taylor  to  veto  the  Com- 
promise of  1850.  The  veto  has  been  used,  however,  since  the  Civil 
War  in  connection  with  questions  arising  out  of  the  status  of  the 
former  slaves. 

March  13,  1866,  a  bill  passed  Congress  entitled,  "An  act  to 
protect  all  persons  in  the  United  States  in  their  civil  rights  and 
furnish  the  means  of  their  vindication."2 

March  27,  1866,  President  Johnson  vetoed  the  bill.  His  objec- 
tions to  it  may  be  grouped  under  four  heads.  First,  he  denied  the 
constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  declare  a  body  of  persons  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States.  Secondly,  even  admitting  the  first 
point,  the  President  did  not  think  that  Congress  had  the  right  to 
settle  the  question  when  eleven  States  were  unrepresented  in  that 
body.  Thirdly,  the  President  considered  the  bill,  on  the  grounds 
of  expediency,  an  unjustifiable  mistake.  The  negroes  were  igno- 
rant, and  it  would  be  a  serious  danger  to  make  them  citizens.  Lastly, 
the  .President  objected  to  the  bill  on  account  of  its  interference 
with  State  rights. 

When  the  message  came  up  in  the  Senate,  the  President's  first 
and  most  important  argument  was  very  severely  criticised.  Sena- 
tor Trumbull  showed3  that  Frenchmen,  Mexicans,  Indians,  and 
Spaniards  had  been  admitted  to  citizenship  by  act  of  Congress.4 
The  Senator  further  maintained  that  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
might  also  be  a  citizen  of  any  state,  and  quoted  in  support  of  this 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  345.  2  Ibid.,  No.  54. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  39  Cong.,  I  sess.,  1756  et  seq. 
*  Lawrence,  Wheaton's  International  Law,  897-899. 


58  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

statement  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
in  the  case  of  Gassies  v.  Ballow.1 

The  last  three  arguments  in  the  President's  message  refer  to 
the  difference  that  existed  between  himself  and  Congress  as  to  the 
proper  reconstruction  policy.  That  question  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed in  another  connection.2 

§  43.  The  Chinese.  —  In  1 868  Mr.  Burlingame  negotiated  a 
treaty  between  China  and  the  United  States,3  under  which  citizens 
of  either  country  could  visit  or  reside  in  the  other.  Almost  im- 
mediately the  dangers  and  evils  of  Chinese  immigration  into  the 
United  States  became  manifest.  The  Chinese  came  here  with  no 
idea  of  becoming  citizens,  and  never  in  any  degree  became  infused 
with  American  ideas.  The  people  of  the  Pacific  slope  early  be- 
came alarmed,  and  finding  state  legislation  ineffectual,  memorialized 
Congress  to  check  the  inflowing  stream  of  Mongolians.  In  1879 
Congress  passed  a  bill  restricting  Chinese  immigration.  March  I, 
1879,  President  Hayes  vetoed  it.4  The  message  is  Jong,  but  its 
point  may  be  stated  in  a  word.  The  President  objected  to  the  bill 
because  it  put  an  end  to  a  treaty  without  notice.  He  did  not  ques- 
tion the  power  of  Congress  to  take  the  step,  but  in  the  state  of 
our  relations  with  China  he  considered  it  inadvisable  and  harmful 
to  approach  the  subject  in  that  way. 

The  veto  was  sustained  by  Congress,  and  the  President  at  once 
appointed  a  commission  to  treat  with  China  in  regard  to  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  Burlingame  treaty.  These  negotiations  were  suc- 
cessful, -.and  a  treaty  was  obtained  from  China  which  was  duly 
ratified  by  the  Senate.5  It  reserved  to  the  United  States  the  right 
of  regulating  the  immigration  of  the  Chinese  to  this  country. 

Before  the  treaty  had  been  in  operation  a  year,  a  bill  was  passed 
by  Congress  prohibiting  all  Chinese  immigration  into  the  United 
States  for  twenty  years.  April  4,  1882,  President  Arthur  vetoed 
this  bill.6  He  objected  to  it  because  in  his  opinion  the  treaty  did 
not  give  Congress  the  power  to  exclude  the  Chinese  for  so  long  a 
period.  It  had  not  been  expected,  he  said,  that  the  United  States 
would  suspend  immigration  for  more  than  three,  or  possibly  five, 
years. 

1  6  Peters,  762.  *  Ante,  Chap.  Ill,  §  34. 

8  United  States  Treaties  and  Conventions,  165. 

*  Appendix  A,  No.  119;   Elaine,  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  651-656. 

5  22  United  States  Stats,  at  Large,  826. 

6  Appendix  A,  No.  129. 


§§  42-45-]  Status  of  the  Chinese.  59 

The  action  of  President  Arthur  was  justified  by  the  intention 
of  the  negotiations ;  and  though  the  meaning  of  a  treaty,  like  that 
of  any  other  law,  is  not  to  be  deduced  from  the  opinion  of  the 
,  framers,  the  President  exercised  a  proper  discretion  in  withholding 
his  assent.  After  some  discussion 1  the  Senate  attempted  to  pass 
the  bill  over  the  veto,  but  did  not  succeed. 

§  44.  General  remarks  on  the  power  over  individuals.  —  The 
class  of  vetoes  which  concern  the  power  of  the  general  govern- 
ment over  individuals  is  not  an  important  one.  Perhaps  the  most 
significant  is  President  Madison's  refusal  to  sign  the  bill  granting 
public  land  to  the  church  in  Mississippi.  Had  the  bill  become 
law,  it  might  have  led  to  other  similar  demands,  which  the  govern- 
ment could  not  consistently  have  ignored,  and  in  time  precedents 
would  probably  have  been  created  which  would  have  involved  the 
government  in  grave  difficulties.  The  only  effect  of  the  vetoes  of 
the  Chinese  immigration  bills  was  to  prevent  Congress  from  mov- 
ing with  unjust  haste.  President  Johnson's  refusal  to  sign  the 
civil  rights  bill  had  no  practical  effect,  since  that  bill  was  passed 
over  the  veto.  The  Indian  vetoes  have  been  too  few  seriously  to 
affect  the  policy  of  the  government. 

§  45.  Territorial  powers.  District  of  Columbia.  —  No  power  of 
government  has  caused  so  much  discussion  in  the  United  States  as 
that  over  territory.  The  annexation  of  each  successive  parcel  has 
been  the  subject  of  long  diplomacy  and  of  fierce  debates  ;  the 
administration  of  territory  involved  the  slavery  question,  and  was  ^ 
the  occasion  of  the  Civil  War.  But  the  great  struggles  over  the 
territories,  the  Compromises  of  1820  and  1850,  the  Kansas-Nebraska, 
Lecompton,  and  English  bills,  led  to  no  conflict  between  Congress 
and  the  President.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  public  lands.  Ever 
since  1789  the  disposition  of  the  public  lands  has  been  a  recurring 
subject  of  dispute,  and  has  led  to  a  series  of  interesting  vetoes. 

Before  entering  upon  that  subject,  however,  it  may  be  well 
to  dispose  of  several  unimportant  vetoes  which  relate  to  the  local 
administration  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

August  14,  1876,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  in  regard  to  the 
repairing  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  in  Washington,  on  the  ground 
that  the  time  within  which  the  contractors  must  complete  the  work 
was  not  definitely  stated.2 

1  Congressional  Record,  47  Cong.,  I  sess.,  2609,  2614. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  107. 


60  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

January  23,  1877,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  removing  the 
police  of  the  District  of  Columbia  from  the  control  of  the  Police 
Commissioners,  on  the  ground  that  certain  gross  violations  of  the 
law  could  be  prevented  only  in  case  the  then  existing  arrangement 
was  continued.1 

April  26,  1886,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  which  pro- 
vided for  the  delivery  of  certain  dead  bodies  to  medical  colleges  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  on  the  ground  that  the  measure  did 
not  guard  carefully  enough  against  abuses  liable  to  arise  in  the 
treatment  and  disposition  of  the  bodies.2 

§  46.    Early    land  vetoes.3  —  The  first   of  the  vetoes  affecting, 
.the  public  lands  was  the  refusal  of  president  MadisonLin  jj?i  I,  tOj 
.sign  a  bill  granting  land  to  a  church  in  Mississippi.4     The  ground 
upon  which  it  rested  was  the1  constitutional  provision  against  the 
union  of  church  and  state,  and  the  question  was  not  discussed  as 
to  whether  the  grant  would  have  been  proper  for  other  purposes. 

December  5,  1833,  President  Jackson  s,e,nt  to  Congress  a  mes- 
sage giving  his  reasons  for  failing-  to  sign  at  the  last  session  a  bill 
entitled,  "An  act  to  appropriate  for  a  limited  time  the  proceeds^ 
the  sales  ot  public  lands  of  the  United  States^-jmd  for  granting 
lands  to  the  btates."  a  This  document  is,  in  many  respects,  the  best 
of  Jackson's  veto  messages.  He  begins  by  tracing  the  history  of 
the  public  land,  and  j:omes  to  the  conclusion  that  it -was  ..ceded  to 
the  United  States  on  the  express  condition  that  it  shouldLbe  dis-. 
posed  of  tor  the  common  benefit  of  the  States,  ^according  to  then; 
respective  proportions  in  the  general  charge  of  expenditure. "  6  The 
President  then  points  out  that  this  compact  is  violated  by  the  pres- 
ent bill  in  two  respects.  In  the  first  place,  a  portion  of  the  land 
was  confessedly  not  to  be  distributed  equally  among  the  States  ; 7 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  in.  2  Ibid.,  No.  135. 

3  For  general  accounts  of  the  public  land  policy  of  the  United  States,  with*  bibliog- 
raphy, see  Shosuki  Sato,  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Series  IV;   Albert  Bush- 
nell  Hart,  in  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  I,  169-183,  251-254. 

4  Ante,  §  39;   Appendix  A,  No.  4. 

6  Appendix  A,  No.  17.  In  reference  to  this  bill  Henry  Clay  wrote  to  Madison,  ask- 
ing him  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  President  had  not  violated  the  Constitution  by  retain- 
ing the  bill,  instead  of  returning  it  approved  or  disapproved.  To  this  inquiry  Madison 
returned  a  rather  equivocal  answer. —  Madison,  Works,  IV,  299.  The  same  question 
was  discussed  at  length  when  the  President's  message  was  read.  —  Debates  of  Congress, 
Vol.  X,  Part  I,  14-18;  see/0.tf,  §  101. 

6  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  in. 

7  Ibid.,  113. 


§§45-47-]  District  of  Columbia.     Lands.  61 

and,  in  the  second  place,  the  distribution  of  the  remainder  was  to 
be  made  according  to  the  population,  instead  of  according  to  the 
share  of  each  State  in  the  general  charge  and  expenditure.1 

The  President  also  objected  to  the  bill  because  it  appropriated 
the  land  and  its  proceeds  for  local  improvements,  —  a  procedure 
which  he  considered  identical  with  the  appropriation  of  money 
lying  in  the  treasury.  He  declared  that  the  money  derived  from 
the  sales  of  the  land  should  be  turned  into  the  treasury,  to  form  a 
part  of  the  aggregate  revenue  of  the  government.2 

December  14,  1842,  President  Tyler  sent  to  Congress  his  rea- 
sons for  having  failed  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  session  to  sign 
a  bill  entitled,  "  An  act  to  repeal  the  proviso  of  the  sixth  section 
of  the  act  entitled,  '  An  act  to  appropriate  the  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  the  public  lands  and  to  grant  pre-emption  rights,'  approved  Sep- 
tember fourth,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-one."  3  The  proviso  sus- 
pended the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
land  among  the  States  whenever  the  customs  duties  were  over 
twenty  per  cent.  The  proviso  was  considered  by  President  Tyler 
an  important  part  of  the  compromise  tariff  of  1833  ;  and  as  he 
objected  to  the  bill,  not  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  public  land, 
but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  tariff,  his  position  will  be  fully 
considered  later  on  in  connection  with  his  veto  of  the  tariff  bills.4 

§  47.  Public  Lands  and  the  Constitution.  Land  grants.  —  In  1854 
we  come  upon  a  veto  which  follows  President  Jackson's  discussion 
of  the  proper  constitutional  disposition  of  the  public  lands.  On 
May  3  of  that  year  President  Pierce  refused  his  sanction  to  a  bill 
entitled,  "An  act  making  a  grant  of  public  lands  to  the  several 
States  for  the  benefit  of  indigent  insane  persons."  5  In  the  debates 
upon  this  bill  its  friends  had  argued  6  that  land  was  different  from 
money  in  the  vaults  of  the  treasury  ;  and  that  although  Congress 
could  appropriate  money  only  in  certain  limited  ways,  its  power 
over  the  public  land  was  absolutely  unlimited. 

The  President  dismissed  this  argument  with  a  word,  declaring 
that  he  could  see  no  difference  between  public  land  and  money  in 

1  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  114.        2  Ibid.,  112. 
3  Appendix  A,  No.  26.  » 

*  Post,  §  53;  see  also  Appendix  A,  Nos.  24,  25. 
6  Appendix  A,  No.  34. 

6  See  Congressional  Globe  under  the  dates  given  in  the  Appendix;  and  United  States 
Constitution,  Art.  IV,  Sec.  3,  §  2. 


62  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

the  treasury.  He  placed  his  objection  to  the  bill  on  the  broad 
ground  that  it  assumed  for  the  general  government  a  power  over 
local  affairs  in  the  States  which  was  not  granted  either  directly  or 
impliedly  by  the  Constitution.  The  only  clause  from  which  the 
measure  could  hope  to  obtain  support,  in  the  President's  opinion, 
was  the  "general  welfare"  clause,  and  he  declared  that  to  admit 
the  authority  of  that  clause  in  the  present  case  would  be  to  deprive 
the  Constitution  of  its  meaning.  "All  the  pursuits  of  industry, 
everything  which  promotes  the  material  or  intellectual  well-being 
of  the  race,  every  ear  of  corn  or  boll  of  cotton  which  grows,  is 
national  in  the  same  sense ;  for  each  of  these  things  goes  to  swell 
the  aggregate  of  national  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  United 
States."  The  President  argued  further  that  the  land  in  question  was 
pledged  as  security  for  the  debt  contracted  by  the  act  of  January 
28,  1847,  and  to  sell  it  would  be  a  breach  of  the  national  faith. 

February  24,  1859,  President  Buchanan  vetoed  a  bill  entitled, 
"  An  act  donating  public  lands  to  the  several  States  and  Territories 
which  may  provide  colleges  for  the  benefit  of  agriculture  and.  the 
mechanic  arts."  1  In  order  to  secure  the  grant  each  State  was 
required  to  provide  within  five  years  not  less  than  one  college. 
The  President  objected  to  the  bill,  in  the  first  place,  because  the 
government  needed  the  revenue  from  the  sale  of  the  lands  to  meet 
its  expenses ;  in  the  second  place,  because  the  low  price  at  which 
the  land  was  to  be  sold  would  induce  speculators  to  buy  it  in  large 
blocks,  thus  retarding  the  development  of  the  country ;  lastly,  the 
President  doubted  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  pay  for 
these  State  colleges.  If  public  land  and  the  proceeds  from  its  sale 
were  to  be  treated  as  were  the  funds  in  the  treasury,  there  was,  he 
considered,  no  question  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  measure. 
The  argument  in  favor  of  the  bill  was  substantially  the  same  as  in 
1854;  it  was  said  that  public  land  stood  upon  a  different  footing 
from  other  public  property,  and  that  the  power  which  Congress 
had  to  "dispose  of"2  the  public  lands  included  the  right  to  give 
them  to  the  States  for  any  purposes  whatever.  Against  this  doc- 
trine Buchanan  set  himself  strongly  :  he  declared  that  Congress  was 
in  the  position  of  a  trustee  for  the  people,  and  that  no  trustee  would 
be  justified  in  giving  away  trust  property,  merely  because  he  was 
instructed  to  "dispose"  of  it. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  44. 

2  Constitution,  Art.  IV,  sec.  3,  §  2. 


§  47-]  Public  Lands.  63 

The  President  met  the  argument  that  Congress  had  previously 
granted  land  to  the  States  for  educational  purposes,  with  the  same 
reasoning  employed  by  Pierce  in  1854.  The  gifts,  he  said,  had 
been  almost  universally  to  new  States,  and  were  for  the  purpose  of 
enhancing  the  value  of  the  remaining  public  land  in  the  States  to 
which  the  grants  were  made.  The  acts  were  merely  those  of  a 
"prudent  proprietor." 

June  22,  1860,  President  Buchanan  again  refused  his  assent  to 
an  act  relating  to  the  public  land.  The  bill  was  entitled,  "  An  act 
to  secure  homesteads  to  actual  settlers  on  the  public  domain,  and 
for  other  purposes."  J 

The  measure  provided  that  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  who 
was  a  head  of  a  family,  and  any  foreigner  who  should  declare  his 
intention  of  becoming  a  citizen,  could  obtain  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  of  public  land  at  a  nominal  cost.  The  important  condition 
was  that  the  settler  should  remain  on  the  land  five  years  before 
receiving  the  title.  It  was  further  provided  that  all  the  unsold 
public  land  which  had  been  subject  to  sale  for  thirty  years  should 
be  granted  to  the  State  within  whose  boundaries  it  lay. 

The  President  considered  the  bill  unconstitutional,  both  on 
account  of  the  donation  to  the  States,  and  because  it  practically 
gave  the  land  to  the  settlers.  For  his  reasons  he  referred  to  the 
message  which  has  just  been  considered  in  regard  to  grants  of  land 
for  the  establishment  of  agricultural  colleges.  He  also  objected  to 
the  bill  because  it  opened  a  vast  field  to  speculation ;  because  the 
government  needed  the  revenue  from  the  public  land ;  and  because 
it  was  unjust  to  the  settlers  who  had  already  bought  land. 

The  message  gave  rise  to  a  long  debate  in  Congress  in  which 
each  of  the  President's  arguments  was  attacked.2  The  only  impor- 
tant point  that  was  effectually  met,  however,  was  that  in  regard 
to  the  revenue.  Here  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  bill  took  away 
no  essential  resource  of  the  government ;  because  in  times  of  war 
or  distress  when  the  government  needed  revenue  most,  the  public 
lands  sold  very  slowly.3  A  more  occult  reason  for  the  opposition 
of  both  Presidents  was  the  feeling  of  some  Southern  politicians 
that  the  lands  were  being  used  to  attract  foreigners  to  the  West, 
and  thus  to  strengthen  the  North  and  to  increase  the  number  of 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  48. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  36  Cong.,  I  sess.,  3263-3272. 

3  Ibid.,  3272. 


64  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

Northern  States.1  Whatever  the  reasons,  the  attempt  made  by 
Pierce  and  Buchanan  to  check  the  generosity  of  Congress  was  inef- 
fectual. Acts  were  eventually  passed  granting  lands  to  the  States 
for  agricultural  colleges,  establishing  the  homestead  system,  and 
making  "donations  "  of  unsold  lands  to  the  older  interior  States. 

§  48.  Later  land  vetoes  on  grounds  of  expediency. —  Since  the 
,  war  a  number  of  bills  relating  to  the  public  lands  have  failed  to 
\j  obtain  executive  approval,  but  in  these  bills  the  only  points  raised 
have  been  those  of  expediency. 

June  15,  1866,  President  Johnson  vetoed  a  bill  which  authorized 
the  New  York  and  Montana  Mining  Company  to  pre-empt  mineral 
•  and  timber  lands  in  the  Territory  of  Montana.2  The  provisions  of 
the  pre-emption  laws  in  regard  to  residence  on  and  cultivation  of 
the  land,  the  limit  to  the  amount  of  land  which  could  be  pre-empted 
by  a  single  individual,  and  the  rule  requiring  payment  for  the  land 
within  a  certain  time,  were  all  suspended  by  the  bill  under  discus- 
sion. Furthermore,  it  allowed  the  mining  company  to  acquire  a 
patent  to  the  land  before  the  Indian  tifle  was  extinguished.  The 
President  considered  such  an  act  to  be  hostile  to  the  policy  of  the 
pre-emption  laws,  and  a  great  injustice  to  the  Indians. 

July  28,  1 866,. President  Johnson  vetoed  an  act  which,  under  the 
pretext  of  erecting  the  Territory  of  Montana  into  a  surveying  dis- 
trict, practically  granted  to  the  New  York  and  Montana  Mining 
Company  the  rights  which  the  President  had  objected  to  in  his 
message  of  June  I5.3 

January  15,  1877,  President  Grant  vetoed  an  act  relating  to  the 
proof  required  in  homestead  entries.4  The  reasons  for  the  veto 
accompanied  the  veto  message  in  a  separate  document  which  does 
not  appear  in  the  Journals  of  Congress. 

In  President  Cleveland's  administration,  six  bills  relating  to  the 
public  land  met  with  executive  disapproval.  March  n,  1886,  the 
President  vetoed  a  bill  entitled,  "  An  act  to  quiet  the  title  of  set- 
tlers on  the  Des  Moines  River  lands  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  for 
other  purposes/'5  In  1846  Congress  had  granted  to  Iowa  a  strip 
of  the  public  land  lying  along  the  Des  Moines  River.  The  act 
was  so  worded  that  the  title  to  a  portion  of  the  land  was  in  doubt. 
The  State  claimed  it,  and  a  few  years  later  the  claim  was  admitted 

1  Von  Hoist,  U.  S.,  VI,  302. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  56.  3  Ibid.,  No.  58. 
*  Ibid.,  No.  no.                           5  Ibid.,  No.  134. 


§§  47»  48-]  Public  Lands.  65 

by  the  United  States,  and  the  land  was  certified  to  the  State 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  The  State  then  deeded  it  to 
the  Des  Moines  Navigation  and  Railroad  Company  in  considera- 
tion of  improvements  made  by  that  company  along  the  Des  Moines 
River.  The  company  afterward  wound  up  its  affairs  and  dis- 
tributed the  land.  In  1859  tne  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  decided  that  the  certification  of  the  lands  to  Iowa  was 
unauthorized  and  void,  and  that  the  title  was  still  in  the  United 
States.  Thereupon  in  1861  and  1862  acts  of  Congress  were 
passed  which  relinquished  to  Iowa  all  the  title  of  the  United  States 
in  these  lands.  The  Supreme  Court  has  since  then  held  repeat- 
edly that  these  acts  made  good  the  title  of  the  Des  Moines  Navi- 
gation and  Railroad  Company,  and  of  those  claiming  under  that 
company. 

The  present  act  in  the  face  of  the  previous  acts  of  Congress, 
and  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  declared  the  lands  to 
be  the  property  of  the  United  States.  Furthermore,  the  claims  of 
all^  settlers  on  these  lands  prior  to  1880,  who  had  taken  possession 
with  intent  to  obtain  the  lands  under  the  pre-emption  and  home- 
stead laws,  were  made  good.  This  seemed  to  the  President  "  An 
interference  with  the  determination  of  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the 
government,  an  arbitrary  annulment  of  a  public  grant  made  more 
than  twenty-five  years  ago,  an  attempted  destruction  of  vested 
rights,  and  a  threatened  impairment  of  lawful  contracts,"  and  he 
therefore  vetoed  the  bill. 

May  1 8,  1888,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  joint  resolution 
authorizing  the  city  of  Boston  to  make  use  of  Castle  Island  in  Bos- 
ton Harbor  as  a  park.1  Fort  Independence,  one  of  the  important 
defences  of  Boston,  is  situated  on  this  island,  and  the  President 
objected  to  the  resolution,  on  the  ground  that  the  use  of  the  island 
as  a  place  of  recreation  would  be  entirely  inconsistent  with  its 
necessary  use  as  a  defence. 

August  7,  1888,  the  President  was  again  compelled  to  interfere 
to  prevent  the  destruction  of  a  portion  of  the  national  defences. 
The  vetoed  bill  granted  to  the  city  of  Tacoma,  Washington  Terri- 
tory, the  right  to  use  a  military  reservation  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  city  as  a  park.2  This  reservation  was  considered  by  the  mili- 
tary authorities  an  important  element  in  the  national  defence. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  298.  2  Ibid.,  No.  347. 


66  Veto  Power :  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

The  President  objected  to  the  bill,  on  the  ground  that  the  use  of 
the  reservation  as  a  park  would  impair  or  destroy  its  usefulness 
from  a  military  point  of  view. 

In  1862  land  was  granted  to  such  of  the  States  as  should  estab- 
lish agricultural  colleges.  In  case  a  State  should  select  lands 
whose  value  had  been  raised  to  double  the  minimum  price  in  con- 
sequence of  railroad  grants,  the  act  provided  that  the  number  of 
acres  granted  to  the  State  should  be  diminished  proportionately. 
The  grant  to  Kansas  had  been  decreased  in  this  way.  A  joint 
resolution  passed  Congress  in  1888,  authorizing  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  to  certify  lands  to  Kansas  for  the  benefit  of  her  agri- 
cultural college,  on  the  ground  that  the  railroad  which  made  the 
State  land  more  valuable  had  been  abandoned ;  that  the  land  had 
in  consequence  fallen  to  the  minimum  value;  and  that,  therefore, 
the  State  was  entitled  to  more  land.  The  President  vetoed  the 
resolution  September  24,  I888,1  on  the  ground  that  although  the 
original  railroad  had  been  abandoned,  new  ones  had  been  located 
in  its  place,  and  that  in  consequence  only  about  three  hundred 
acres  of  the  Kansas  grant  had  fallen  to  the  minimum. 

On  the  same  day  that  the  resolution  just  considered  was  vetoed, 
the  President  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives  his  objections 
to  a  bill  entitled,  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  disposal  of  the  Fort 
Wallace  military  reservation  in  Kansas."2  President  Cleveland 
objected  to  the  measure  because  it  had  been  drawn  in  such  a  care- 
less manner  that  it  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  the  unjust  treatment 
of  certain  private  interests. 

February  21,  1889,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  entitled, 
"An  act  to  quiet  the  title  of  settlers  on  the  Des  Moines  River 
lands,  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  for  other  purposes."  3  The  rea- 
sons for  the  veto  were  identical  with  those  assigned  for  the  veto 
of  March  n,  1886. 

§  49.  Effect  of  the  public  land  vetoes.  —  A  comparison  of  the 
vetoes  affecting  the  public  lands  brings  out  clearly  two  respects  in 
which  the  executive  has  differed  from  the  legislative  department. 
On  questions  of  expediency  the  executive  has  been  a  conservative 
element,  unwilling  to  enter  on  untried  schemes  and  standing  as  a 
protector  of  settled  and  vested  interests,  as  against  the  sweeping 
and  often  ill-considered  action  of  Congress.  In  the  end,  however, 
a  lavish  disposition  of  the  public  lands  has  prevailed.  In  like 
i  Appendix  A,  No.  386.  2  Ibid.,  No.  387.  8  Ibid.,  No.  425. 


§§  4&-50-]  Admission  of  States.  67 

manner  the  second  principle  for  which  several  Presidents  have 
striven,  has  in  the  end  been  overborne.  Pierce  and  Buchanan 
were  right  in  their  assertion  that  public  land  may  lawfully  be  used 
for  the  same  purposes  as  public  money,  and  for  no  other :  but  the 
practice  of  the  government  has  since  been  firmly  established  that 
the  lands  may  be  used  to  attract  settlement,  in  ways  in  which 
money  could  not  be  used  ;  and  the  principle  set  forth  by  the  vetoes 
may  be  considered  as  superseded  by  the  accepted  practice  of  the 
government. 

§  50.  Admission  of  States.  —  The  territorial  power  of  Congress 
enables  it  not  only  to  control  the  management  of  the  public  lands 
and  the  government  of  the  Territories,  but  also  to  admit  the  Terri- 
tories into  the  Union  whenever  it  sees  fit.  In  several  cases,  all 
of  which  occurred  in  President  Johnson's  administration,  the  ex- 
ecutive has  prevented  the  exercise  of  this  power. 

The  first  of  the  bills  to  which  the  President  objected  was  en- 
titled, "  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Colorado  into 
the  Union."  President  Lincoln's  administration  had  been  dis- 
tinctly favorable  to  the  admission  of  new  free  States.  Encour- 
aged by  this  fact,  both  Colorado  and  Nebraska  had  applied  for  and 
obtained  from  Congress  enabling  acts.1  In  1866  both  States 
applied  for  admission,  and  Congress  passed  acts  admitting  them. 

The  Colorado  bill  was  passed  first,  and  when  it  reached  the 
President,  it  found  a  man  by  no  means  so  favorably  disposed  to 
the  admission  of  Northern  States  as  his  predecessor  had  been ; 
and  on  May  15,  1866,  it  was  vetoed.2  The  President's  objections 
were  threefold.  In  the  first  place,  in  his  opinion  the  population  in 
the  territory  was  not  sufficient  to  warrant  its  admission  as  a  State. 
Secondly,  he  doubted  whether  the  people  in  the  Territory  really 
wished  to  change  the  Territory  into  a  State.  Lastly,  the  President 
did  not  think  it  just  to  admit  new  States  while  eleven  of  the  exist- 
ing States  were  unrepresented  in  Congress.  This  last  argument 
was  borrowed  from  the  larger  controversy  between  Congress  and 
the  President  in  regard  to  reconstruction.3 

The  Nebraska  bill  was  passed  later  in  the  session,  and  was 
quietly  disposed  of  by  a  pocket  veto,4  of  which  Congress  never 
received  official  notice. 

1  Elaine,  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  II,  276. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  55.  3  Ante,  §  34. 
*  Elaine,  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  II,  277. 


68  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  next  session  of  Congress1  Senator 
Wade  again  introduced  bills  for  the  admission  of  both  Colorado 
and  Nebraska  into  the  Union.  Both  bills  passed  Congress,  but  as 
a  preliminary  to  the  passage  of  the  acts  both  Territories  were 
obliged  expressly  to  guarantee  the  right  of  suffrage  to  the 
negroes. 

The  Colorado  bill  reached  the  President  first,  and  was  promptly 
vetoed.2  The  reasons  for  the  veto  were  substantially  those  for 
the  veto  of  the  first  bill  with  a  few  additions.  The  most  impor- 
tant of  the  new  objections  was  directed  against  the  clause  which 
prescribed  that  the  State  should  never  interfere  with  the  right  of 
the  negroes  to  vote. 

January  29,  1867,  the  President  vetoed  the  bill  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Nebraska.3  The  President  urged  that  the  population  of 
Nebraska  was  scarcely  sufficient  to  warrant  its  admission ;  but  his 
main  objection  to  the  bill  was  that  it  prohibited  the  State  from 
ever  interfering  with  the  right  of  the  negroes  to  vote.  The  bill 
was  reconsidered  and  passed  over  the  veto. 

§  51.  Criticism  of  the  Colorado  and  Nebraska  vetoes. — The 
discussion  of  both  vetoes  in  Congress  was  bitter  and  partisan.  It 
was  mainly  carried  on  in  the  Senate.4  It  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that,  in  the  light  of  the  circumstances  governing  the  admission  of 
other  States,  the  President  was  justified  in  his  course.  Florida, 
Oregon,  Kansas,  and  Nevada  had,  it  is  true,  been  admitted  into 
the  Union  with  a  population  not  sufficient  justly  to  entitle  them 
to  one  representative.  But  Florida  had  been  admitted  to  make  a 
slave  State,  and  Kansas  to  settle  a  great  national  controversy. 

Without  doubt,  Congress  had  exclusive  power  in  such  cases,  and 
could  admit  new  States  upon  such  terms  as  it  chose.  But  vthe 
President  was  also  a  part  of  the  legislative  power,  and  could  set 
his  conditions.  The  truth  was  that  Congress  in  its  eagerness  to 
increase  the  number  of  Northern  States  had  hastened  to  admit 
unfit  communities,  and  the  President,  although  actuated  by  equally 
partisan  motives,  maintained  a  higher  principle  of  public  interest. 

The  President  objected  in  the  second  place  to  the  restriction 
which  Congress  proposed  to  place  upon  the  new  States  in  regard 

1  2  sess.,  39  Cong. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  60.  3  Ibid.,  No.  6l. 

4  Colorado  bill:  Congressional  Globe,  2  sess.,  39  Cong.,  818,  1922,  1927.  Nebraska 
bill:  Congressional  Globe,  2  sess.,  39  Cong.,  851,  1096. 


§§  5°-53-]  Admission  of  States.  69 

to  the  right  of  suffrage.  The  question  was  only  one  phase  of  the 
larger  one  as  to  whether  Congress  may  impose  conditions  of  any 
kind  on  the  admission  of  new  States.  Restrictions  have  not 
been  uncommon,  and  some  of  them,  as  for  example  requiring 
from  the  new  State  a  waiver  of  any  claim  to  tax  the  lands  of 
the  United  States,  or  fixing  the  boundary  of  the  State,  are 
undoubtedly  binding.1  Such  conditions  as  those  imposed  on 
Nebraska  and  Colorado  cannot  however  have  any  force.  One  of 
the  fundamental  rules  for  the  admission  of  new  States  is  that  each 
one  shall  be  received  into  the  Union  on  a  footing  with  the  States 
already  existing,  and  with  all  their  rights  and  privileges.  One  of 
these  privileges  is  the  power  to  amend  the  State  Constitution,  and 
the  condition  imposed  on  Nebraska  and  Colorado  interfered  with 
that  privilege.  Here,  again,  the  President,  although  actuated  by 
motives  of  hostility  to  the  majority  of  Congress,  was  acting  upon 
principles  of  strict  constitutional  justice. 

§  52.  Financial  powers.  —  In  considering  the  vetoes  relating  to 
the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  government,  we  have  so  far  been  con- 
cerned only  with  those  touching  either  the  rights  of  individuals  or 
the  territorial  power  of  Congress.  The  class  which  next  presents 
itself  includes  those  vetoes  which  in  one  way  or  another  affect  the 
financial  powers  of  the  government.  They  are  by  far  the  most 
important  and  numerous  of  those  to  be  examined.  Such  vetoes  will 
be  discussed  in  the  following  order  :  first,  those  which  concern  the 
raising  of  the  revenue ;  next,  those  which  concern  the  safe-keeping 
of  government  funds  ;  thirdly,  those  which  concern  the  circulating 
medium ;  and  lastly,  those  which  concern  the  spending  of  the 
revenue. 

§  53.  The  tariff.  —  The  raising  of  revenue  seems  so  well  recog- 
nized a  prerogative  of  Congress,  that  no  tax  bill  has  ever  been 
vetoed  upon  financial  grounds,  or  even  from  constitutional  consid- 
erations unmixed  with  personal  animus.  With  a  single  unimpor- 
tant exception,  the  only  tariffs  vetoed  have  been  the  two  bills 
presented  by  the  Whigs  to  President  Tyler  in  the  summer  of  1842, 
when  his  struggle  with  the  party  which  placed  him  in  power  was 
at  its  height. 

The  reduction  of  duties  under  the  Compromise  Tariff  of  1833 
had  gone  so  far  that  by  1842  the  expenses  of  the  government  were 

1  Cooley,  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,  177. 


70  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

greater  than  its  receipts.  To  meet  this  deficiency,  Congress,  in 
June,  1842,  passed  a  temporary  revenue  act  which  raised  the  duties 
above  the  twenty  per  cent  average.  Tacked  to  this  bill  was  a 
provision  for  the  continuance  of  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds 
from  the  sales  of  public  land.  The  addition  would  have  been  vir- 
tually a  repeal  of  the  act  of  1841  for  the  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  public  land  sales ;  it  was  therein  provided  that,  if  the 
duties  should  be  raised  above  twenty  per  cent,  the  distribution 
should  cease.1  To  the  President's  mind  the  act  of  1841  was  a  vital 
part  of  the  Compromise  of  1833,  and  he  therefore  vetoed  the  pres- 
ent bill.2  When  the  message  was  received  by  Congress,  it  created 
great  excitement  in  that  body.3  The  Whigs  were  charged  by  their 
opponents  with  sending  the  bill  to  the  President  for  the  purpose  of 
having  it  vetoed.  The  Whigs  themselves  expressed  great  indigna- 
tion at  the  suggestion,  and  declared  that  the  purest  motives  of 
patriotism  alone  had  influenced  them. 

August  5,  1842,  a  permanent  revenue  bill  passed  the  Senate 
and  was  sent  to  the  President.  This  bill,  like  its  predecessor,  con- 
tained a  clause  providing  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
public  land  sales.  August  9,  President  Tyler  vetoed  the  bill.4  As 
in  the  case  of  the  preceding  bill,  the  President  expressed  no  objec- 
tion to  the  revenue  clauses  of  the  bill,  but  based  his  opposition  on 
the  distribution  clause. 

When  the  message  was  received  by  the  House,  it  was  referred 
to  a  select  committee  of  thirteen.5  On  August  16,  this  committee 
made  three  reports  :  a  majority  report  through  Adams,  the  chair- 
man,6 a  minority  report  signed  by  Ingersoll  and  Roosevelt,7  and  a 
report  signed  by  Gilmer.8  The  majority  report  attacked  the  Presi- 
dent's whole  course,  and  severely  censured  his  use  of  the  veto 
power.  The  report  closed  with  a  recommendation  for  a  constitu- 
tional amendment,  providing  that  a  simple  majority  vote  of  all  the 
members  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  should  be  sufficient  to  pass  a 
bill  over  the  President's  veto.  When  this  report  appeared,  the 
President  sent  a  written  protest  to  the  House. 9  The  House 

1  The  same  question  came  up  in  Tyler's  veto  of  the  act  to  repeal  the  provision.  See 
ante,  §  46;  Appendix  A,  No.  26.  %  2  Appendix  A,  No.  24. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  694,  699,  708,  712,  716. 
4  Appendix  A,  No.  23. 

6  Congressional  Globe,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  877.  6  Ibid.,  894.  7  Ibid.,  899. 

8  Ibid.,  896.  9  Appendix  B,  No.  3. 


§  53-]  The  Tariff.  7  1 

returned  as  a  reply  a  verbatim  copy  of  the  resolutions  which  the 
Senate  had  adopted  on  the  occasion  of  President  Jackson's  protest, 
and  for  which  Tyler,  as  a  Senator,  had  voted. 

In  the  debate  over  the  veto,  members  of  Congress  indulged  in 
the  most  gloomy  forebodings  as  to  the  future  of  the  country.  The 
President  was  charged  with  crushing  out  freedom.  Mr.  Lane  of 
Indiana  affirmed  that1  "If  the  proud  eagle  of  American  liberty 
should  ever  sink,  it  would  be  cloven  down  by  the  sword  of  the 
executive."  The  records  show  that  even  the  most  sensible  men  on 
the  Whig  side  of  the  House  appeared  to  share  the  fear  grandilo- 
quently expressed  by  Mr.  Lane.  Much  of  the  criticism  was  of 
course  mere  party  talk  ;  but  one  point  of  more  than  partizan  inter- 
est was  touched  upon  in  the  strife.  It  was  maintained  that  it  was 
entirely  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  for  the  executive 
to  veto  a  revenue  bill.2  It  was  indeed  true  that  the  Constitution 
had  reserved  to  the  House  the  exclusive  right  to  originate  such 
bills;3  but  the  Senate  was  not  prohibited,  either  expressly  or  by 
implication,  from  rejecting  or  amending  them  ;  nor  was  the  Presi- 
dent precluded  from  vetoing  them.  Analogies  were  drawn  from 
the  English  procedure  in  similar  cases,  but  were  misleading.  We 
have  already  seen  that  the  veto  power  in  England  had  totally  dis- 
appeared more  than  one  hundred  years  before  the  time  of  President 
Tyler's  administration.  Moreover,  the  English  kings  were  depend- 
ent upon  Parliamentary  votes  for  their  revenues,  and  therefore 
would  not  have  refused  their  assent  to  appropriation  bills  even  if 
they  had  not  lost  the  veto.  It  would  have  been  vetoing  their  own 
means  of  support.  The  error  in  the  argument  becomes  even  more 
apparent  when  we  consider  that,  during  the  time  that  the  English 
veto  was  becoming  obsolete,  the  American  veto  was  growing  in 
strength  and  scope.  In  the  United  States  the  power  had  long 
ceased  to  be  used  simply  as  a  check  upon  unconstitutional  meas- 
ures, and  had  come  to  be  freely  used  when  a  President  considered 
a  bill  inexpedient. 

If  there  was  nothing  in  the  Constitution  condemning  these 
vetoes,  was  there  anything  in  that  document  requiring  them  ? 
There  was  not.  They  were,  however,  directly  confirmatory  of  the 
act  of  1841  already  referred  to.  This  act,  with  its  proviso,  was  con- 

1  Congressional  Globe,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  700. 

2  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  460. 
s  Art.  I,  Sec.  7,  §  I. 


Ufy.IftSXT7 


72  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

sidered  an  important  element  of  the  Compromise  of  1833.  That 
compromise,  while  it  was  of  course  not  a  part  of  the  Constitution, 
nevertheless  bore  a  peculiar  character  as  a  settlement  between 
the  sections  of  the  country  of  a  great  question  of  policy.  It  had, 
in  consequence  of  this  character,  been  recognized  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  as  somewhat  above  an  ordinary  act.1 
While  it  is  impossible  to  consider  the  tariff  vetoes  a  defence  of 
the  Constitution,  it  is  equally  impossible  to  call  them  mere  meas- 
ures of  expediency  or  the  exercise  of  the  President's  personal 
whims.  They  occupy  a  curious  and  somewhat  anomalous  position 
midway  between  expediency  and  constitutionality. 

February  22,  1869,  President  Johnson  vetoed  a  bill  increasing 
the  duty  on  the  import  of  copper  and  copper  ores.2  The  bill  was 
passed  in  the  interests  of  certain  mines  on  Lake  Superior  which 
were  in  a  much  depressed  condition.  It  was,  in  short,  a  bill  for  the 
protection  of  home  industries,  and  was  vetoed  by  the  President 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  -diminish  the  revenue  of  the  govern- 
ment by  curtailing  imports,  would  impose  an  additional  tax  on  an 
already  overburdened  people,  and  would  destroy  certain  manufac- 
tories which  were  much  more  extensive  and  important  than  the 
industry  it  was  proposed  to  protect.  He  also  pointed  out  that  the 
bill  could  not  be  called  a  protective  measure  in  any  fair  acceptation 
of  the  term,  since  it  appeared  to  assume  that  the  need  for  which 
provision  was  to~be  made  was  inherent  and  permanent. 

In  the  House,  a  sharp  debate  arose  upon  the  veto.  The  ques- 
tion was  mainly  as  to  the  advisability  of  a  policy  of  protection  in 
general  and  in  this  particular  instance.  It  was  argued  that  other 
industries  had  been  protected ;  therefore  copper  should  be.3  Mr. 
Schenck  took  occasion  to  remark  that  the  veto  should  only  be  used 
to  protect  the  executive  and  to  prevent  unconstitutional  legislation.4 
These  two  views,  together  with  the  natural  animosity  of  Congress 
toward  President  Johnson,  procured  the  passage  of  the  bill  over 
the  veto. 

§  54.  Refunding  the  direct  tax.  —  Bills  affecting  the  relations 
between  the  States  and  the  general  government  have  seldom  been 
called  in  question  by  the  President.  Twice,  however,  the  veto  has 

1  Aldrige  v.  Williams,  3  Howard,  I. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  73. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  40  Cong.,  3  sess.,  1461-1466. 
4  Ibid.,  1465. 


§§  53»  54-]  Direct  Tax.  73 

been  interposed,  in  both  cases  to  prevent  undeserved  payments  of 
money  to  the  States. 

July  14,  1832,  a  bill  was  presented  to  President  Jackson  entitled, 
"  An  act  providing  for  the  final  settlement  of  the  claims  of  States 
for  interest  on  advances  made  during  the  war."  President  Jackson 
disposed  of  the  bill  by  a  pocket  veto,1  and  early  at  the  next  session 
of  Congress  he  sent  to  the  Senate  his  reasons  for  withholding  his 
approval.  It  adopted,  he  said,  a  principle  in  regard  to  the  allow- 
ance of  interest  to  the  States  contrary  to  the  rule  which  had  been 
uniformly  followed  by  the  government  up  to  that  time. 

A  more  recent  and  much  more  important  proposition  has  been 
that  of  refunding  a  tax  duly  collected  from  the  several  States. 
March  2,  1889,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  entitled,  "An 
act  to  credit  and  pay  to  the  several  States  and  Territories,  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  all  moneys  collected  under  the  direct  tax 
levied  by  the  act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  sixty-one."  2  The  purpose  of  the  bill  is  sufficiently  ex- 
plained by  its  title.  It  was  argued  in  support  of  the  measure  that 
the  money  due  from  most  of  the  Southern  States  never  had  been 
paid  and  could  not  now  be  collected,  and  that  therefore  it  was  an 
act  of  justice  to  those  States  which  had  paid  the  tax  to  refund  to 
them  the  money  they  had  advanced. 

The  President  objected  to  the  bill  first  because  there  was  noth- 
ing in  the  Constitution  which  in  his  opinion  warranted  such  an  ap- 
propriation. The  original  tax  was  laid  and  collected  in  a  constitu- 
tional manner,  and  could  not  be  considered  in  any  sense  as  a  debt 
due  by  the  United  States  either  to  the  States  or  to  the  individuals 
who  had  paid  the  tax.  It  was,  so  the  President  held,  a  sheer  gratu- 
ity, and  as  such  was  wholly  unconstitutional. 

But  the  President  objected  to  the  bill  on  other  than  constitu- 
tional grounds.  He  considered  it  most  unwise  to  familiarize  the 
people  with  the  principle  that  the  government  might  be  called 
upon  to  repay  a  tax  whose  validity  and  constitutionality  were  not 
even  questioned,  simply  because  a  portion  of  it  had  not  been  col- 
lected. He  might  have  added  that  should  this  principle  be  rigidly 
enforced  scarcely  one  of  the  multitude  of  taxes  levied  by  the  United 
States  government  could  remain  unrefunded.  The  last  and  most 
practical  of  the  President's  objections  was  that  the  method  of  dis- 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  15.  2  Ibid.,  No.  433. 


74  Veto  Power: — Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

tribution  adopted  by  the  bill  was  extremely  unjust,  and  that  in  fact 
distribution  on  a  just  basis  was  an  impossibility.  The  bill  pro- 
vided that  in  certain  cases  the  money  was  to  go  unconditionally 
into  the  State  treasuries,  while  in  other  cases  it  was  to  be  returned 
to  those  who  had  paid  the  tax,  or  to  their  legal  representatives. 
The  President  maintained  that  the  tax  had  been  collected  from 
individuals  and  should  in  justice  be  returned  to  individuals.  But 
in  many  cases  the  original  tax-payers  were  neither  alive  nor  repre- 
sented, while  in  other  cases  those  alive  could  not  be  found.  In 
short  it  would  be  impossible  to  return  the  money  to  those  who  had 
paid  it,  or  to  their  representatives,  and  to  return  it  to  any  one  else, 
or  even  to  the  State,  would  be  wholly  unjustifiable. 

The  bill  was  passed  over  the  President's  veto  in  the  Senate,  and 
in  the  debate  incident  to  that  passage  the  doctrine  was  laid  down 
by  Senators  Sherman  and  Stewart  that  bills  should  be  vetoed  only 
upon  constitutional  grounds,1  a  doctrine  which  is  without  founda- 
tion, and  which  sounds  strange  at  the  present  day.2 

§  55.  Bank  charter  vetoes.  —  Turning  now  from  the  vetoes  re- 
lating to  the  raising  of  revenue,  we  come  to  those  which  relate  to 
what  for  lack  of  a  better  title  may  be  called  the  care  of  the  reve- 
nue. The  place  of  deposit  of  government  funds  has  always  been 
a  subject  of  solicitude  ever  since  the  government  had  funds  to 
deposit.  Three  different  Presidents  have  so  far  recognized  this 
solicitude  as  to  veto  bills  granting  charters  to  banks. 

§  56.  Madison's  Bank  veto.  —  January  30,  I 8iJk_President  Madi- 
j>on  vetoed  a  bill  for  the  charter  of  the  Secojid^Ba^nk^of  the  United 
States  of  America.3  In  this  message  the  President  passed  over 
the  constitutional  arguments  against  the  charter  of  the  bank  on 
the  ground  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  question  had  been 
settled  by  the  repeated  recognition  of  the  validity  of  a  national 
bank.  Madison's  objection  to  the  charter  was  based  wholly  on  its 
inefficiency.  The  avowed  objects  of  the  bill  were  to  strengthen 
the  public  credit,  to  furnish  a  currency,  and  to  make  loans  to  the 
government  during  the  existing  war.  These  objects  the  President 
thought  could  not  be  attained  under  the  present  measure,  and  he 
therefore  vetoed  it.  This  veto  was  interesting  as  marking  a  gradual 

1  Congressional  Record,  50  Cong.,  2  sess.,  2612. 

2  A  more  elaborate  discussion  of  the  right  of  the  President  to  veto  bills  for  reasons 
of  expediency  will  be  found  in  §§  121-123. 

3  Appendix  A,  No.  7. 


§§  54-57-]  Bank  Charters.  75 

change  in  the  ground  upon  which  veto  messages  were  based.    Most 
nf  importance^  had  been  founded  wholly  on 


^ 

constitutional  principles  :  occasionally  the  argument  of  expediency 
was  added.  In  the  present  case  it  was  upon  expediency  alone  that  >  - 
the  President  made  objections.  The  veto  is  one  of  the  first  of  the 
long  series  in  which  the  President  has  asserted  a  difference  of  judg- 
ment between  himself  and  Congress  as  the  only  reason  for  refus- 
ing assent  to  a  bill. 

§  57.  Jackson's  Bank  veto.  —  In  1816,  however,  another  bank 
bill  was  presented  to  Madison,  who  signed  it  ;  and  under  the  act 
the  second  United  States  Bank  was  organized.  Jn  1832  an  attempt, 
was  made  to  recharter  the  bank,  and  Jackson  interposed  his  veto.1 
\\\  this  case  the  question  of  constitutionality,  which  President  Ma^j- 
son  had  considered  as  irrevocably  settled  in  the  affirmative,  was 
revived  by  President  Jackson,  who  insisted  that  the  general  ques- 
tion was  still  open,  and  further,  that  the  charter  contained  in  the 
present  bill  was  unconstitutional  in  details,^ 

In  a  previous  chapter  President  Jackson's  bank  veto  has  been 
considered  in  its  bearing  on  the  contest  between  the  legislative 
and  the  executive  branches  of  the  government.2  It  has  also  an 
important  bearing  on  the  exercise  of  the  financial  powers  of  the 
government,  which  must  be  considered  here.  The  President  afr 
firmed  that  he  had  as  much  right  as  the  Supreme  Court  to  declare 
an  act  unconstitutional.  _  He  then  proceeded  to  justify  the  veto  on 
constitutional  grounds,  and  quoted  the  Supreme  Court  in  support 
of  his  position.  His  principle  seems  to  be  that  the  decision_of_the 
Supreme  Court  was  good  law  so  far  as  he  agreed  with  it,  but  of  no 
effect  where  he  disagreed.  The  decision  to  which  President  Jack- 
son  appealed  had  declared  that  a  bank  was  a  "  necessary  "  means 
for  carrying  into  effect  the  powers  of  government,  and  that  it  was 
therefore  constitutional  ;  that  Congress  might  employ  this  means 
at  its  discretion,  and  that  the  question  of  the  degree  of  necessity 
must  be  left  to  Congress.  President  Jackson  then  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  decision  acknowledges  the  right  of  Congress  to  decide 
whether  a  bank  and  the  details  of  its  organization  are  necessary  - 
and  proper  ;  that  the  President,  as  part  of  Congress,  may  decide 
for  himself  whether  the  provisions  of  the  act  are  necessary  and 
proper  ;  and  that  if  the  provisions  are  not  in  his  opinion  necessary 
and  proper  then  the  act  is  unconstitutional.  The  court  declared 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  14.  2  Ante,  §  19. 


76  Veto  Power :  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

the  action  of  Congress  constitutional,  but  Jackson  succeeded  to 
his  own  satisfaction  in  deducing  the  conclusion  that  if  Congress, 
or  any  part  thereof,  should  afterward  hold  another  opinion,  the  act 
then  in  operation  was  unconstitutional. 

Acting  in  accordance  with  this  rather  curious  chain  of  reason- 
ing, the  President  proceeded  to  declare  the  bill  for  the  recharter 
of  the  bank  unconstitutional,  because  he  disapproved  it.  He 
thought  it  unnecessary  that  Congress  should  grant  the  monopoly 
without  allowing  open  competition  for  it,  particularly  since  much  of 
the  stock  in  the  bank  seeking  a  recharter  was  held  by  foreigners. 
He  thought  it  unnecessary  that  the  bank  should  have  power  to 
locate  its  branches  where  it  thought  fit.  It  is  impossible  in  this 
connection,  however,  to  go  into  all  the  curious  financial  ideas 
embodied  in  the  veto  message.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  Presi- 
dent Jackson  reversed  the  decision  of  President  Madisnrj  as  t"  **"* 
constitutionality  ofj:he  bank  charter,  and  supported  his  position. 
by  adistorted  argument. 

§5$.  Tyler's  Bank  veto." — John  Tyler  when  in  the  Senate  had 
supported  Jackson  in  his  attack  on  the  bank  ;  had  agreed  with 
Van  Buren  in  his  opposition  to  the  revival  of  the  bank ;  and 
felt  sure  that  the  "  popular  voice  "  approved  Van  Buren's  course. 
When  in  1841  he  unexpectedly  became  President,  he  found  him- 
self obliged  to  accept  the  Whig  policy  of  a  bank,  and  agreed  to 
give  his  assent  to  any  bank  bill  that  was  constitutional.  Notwith- 
standing the  symptoms  of  a  breach  with  their  President,  the 
Whigs  passed  a  bank  bill  through  Congress.  It  was  not  a  bill 
that  satisfied  anyone,1  but  it  accomplished  the  object  of  forcing  an 
issue  with  the  President.  It  was  generally  considered  certain  that 
the  President  would  not  listen  to  dictation,  at  least  in  this  matter ; 2 
and  no  one  was  really  very  much  surprised  when  the  Senate 
received  a  message  on  August  16,  1841,  vetoing  the  bill.3 

The  President's  reasons  for  vetoing  the  bill  were  twofold.  In 
the  first  place  he  declared  that  approval  would  be  inconsistent  with 
his  previous  expressions  on  the  subject.4  In  the  second  place  the 

1  Niles,  Register,  LXI,  93. 

2  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  424. 

3  Appendix  A,  No.  23;   Benton,  Thirty  Years  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  II,  chaps.  Ixxv, 
Ixxxi-lxxxiii. 

4  Von  Hoist  declares  that  "  Tyler  had  too  little  firmness  of  character  and  too  much 
vanity  to  be  able  to  face  the  reproach  that  he  had  been  unfaithful  to  his  earlier  convic- 
tions, because  he  did  not  dare  defy  the  Whigs." — Constitutional  History  of  the  United 
States,  II,  425. 


§§  57»  58-]  Jackson  s  and  Tyler  s  Bank    Vetoes.  77 

President  considered  the  bill  unconstitutional  because  it  estab- 
lished a  bank  with  power  to  locate  branches  wherever  it  chose 
without  the  consent  of  the  States  within  whose  boundaries  the 
branches  were  to  be  placed.  This  position  is  scarcely  tenable. 
The  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  a  national  bank  was  a  neces- 
sary and  proper  means  for  carrying  on  the  government,  and  there- 
fore constitutional.  But  if  the  government  was  to  make  use  of 
this  constitutional  agent  in  the  conduct  of  its  affairs,  —  in  collect- 
ing revenue,  establishing  revenue,  and  furnishing  currency,  —  it 
must  surely  have  the  power  to  put  the  bank,  or  its  branches,  where 
they  would  be  most  effective ;  yet  this  is  the  very  power  which 
is  denied  by  President  Tyler.  Clearly  he  was  wrong  :  for  if  the 
Constitution  gave  the  government  the  power  to  establish  a  bank 
without  the  consent  of  the  States,  the  consent  of  the  States  was 
not  essential  for  the  establishment  of  necessary  branches  of  the 
bank. 

The  Whig  leaders  at  once  drew  up  a  bill  designed  to  avoid  the 
objections  against  the  first  bill.  It  was  entitled;  "An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  better  collection,  safe  keeping,  and  disbursement  of 
the  public  revenue,  by  means  of  a  corporation  to  be  styled  the 
Fiscal  Corporation  of  the  United  States."  September  9,  1841, 
Tyler  vetoed  it.1  The  President's  main  objection  to  this  bill,  as 
to  the  last  one,  appears  to  be  that  the  bank  could  establish 
branches  in  the  various  States  without  their  consent.  He  also 
objected  to  the  provision  which  allowed  the  bank  to  deal  in  bills 
of  exchange  drawn  in  one  State,  payable  in  another,  and  running 
an  unlimited  time.  He  further  objected  to  the  failure  to  place  a 
limit  on  the  premium  on  these  bills.  Since  the  measure  had  been 
drawn  by  the  Whigs  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  and  wishes 
expressed  by  the  President,  the  veto  greatly  enraged  them.  That 
portion  of  the  debate  in  Congress  which  is  reported  consists  for 
the  most  part  of  a  very  sharp  arraignment  of  the  President  by 
Mr.  Botts,2  in  which  he  discussed  in  no  gentle  fashion  Tyler's 
vacillating  political  policy.  During  the  course  of  his  speech,  he 
took  occasion  to  say  "  that  the  President  had  changed  his  opinion 
since  this  session  opened  just  as  often  as  the  sun  had  risen,  and 
it  had  lasted  now  some  one  hundred  and  twenty  days."  3 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  23. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  27  Cong.,  I  sess.,  447-449.  8  Ibid.,  448. 


7 8  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

§  59.  Criticism  of  the  Bank  vetoes.  —  Whatever  the  causes  of 
Tyler's  vetoes,  however  unsound  his  constitutional  positions,  and 
however  justified  the  wrath  of  the  Whigs,  there  can  scarcely  be 
any  doubt  that  he  did  the  country  good  service  when  he  vetoed 
the  bank  bills.  The  creation  of  such  a  huge  machine  as  the  "  Fis- 
cal Corporation,"  closely  connected  with  the  government  and  par- 
ties as  it  must  have  been,  could  not  have  gained  the  confidence 
of  bankers  and  financiers,  and  would  always  have  been  an  object 
of  party  attack,  and  a  fatally  easy  means  of  corruption  and  political 
dishonesty. 

After  the  retirement  of  Tyler,  the  Whigs  never  again  controlled 
both  Houses  and  the  executive  at  the  same  time ;  the  Demo- 
crats finally  established  the  independent  treasury  system  inau- 
gurated under  Van  Buren  and  repealed  in  1841,  and  were  in 
principle  opposed  to  a  bank.  The  Republican  party  created  the 
compromise  system  of  numerous  so-called  national  banks,  and  there 
has  been  but  one  instance  in  which  a  President  has  felt  called  upon 
to  interpose  his -veto  even  against  details  of  bills  affecting  that 
system. 

Congress  in  1881  passed  an  act  retiring  the  "  new  fives  "  issued 
under  the  funding  act  of  1870,  and  authorizing  in  their  stead  three 
and  one-half  per  cent  bonds  which  were  to  run  forty  years.  March 
3,  1 88 1,  President  Hayes  vetoed  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
a  "  step  in  the  direction  of  the  destruction  of  the  national  banking 
system."1  It  provided  that  after  July  I,  1881,  no  bonds  could  be 
deposited  by  national  banks  as  security  which  bore  a  greater  inter- 
est than  three  per  cent.  This  provision  the  President  declared 
would  prevent  the  future  establishment  of  national  banks  except 
in  the  few  large  financial  centres  where  the  prevailing  rates  of 
interest  are  extremely  low.  The  measure  would  also  threaten  the 
existence  of  the  banks  already  established  through  the  additional 
disadvantages  to  which  it  would  subject  them.  The  President 
then  briefly  referred  to  the  great  success  of  the  national  bank 
system  with  its  almost  indispensable  advantages,  and  concluded 
that  he  could  not  approve  any  measure  which,  like  the  present 
one,  unnecessarily  attacked  that  system. 

§  60.  Currency  and  coinage.  —  Closely  connected  with  the 
tariff  and  bank  bills,  are  bills  which  treat  of  currency  and  coinage. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  128. 


§§  59»  60-]  Banks  and  Currency.  79 

Vetoes  of  such  bills  have  been  comparatively  few  in  number,  but 
some  of  them  have  been  exceedingly  interesting. 

March  3,  1837^  at  "11.45  P.M. "^President  Tar.kson  sigmpH  1-y 
veto  of  a  bill  entitled.  "  An  act  designating  and  limiting  the  funds 
receivable  for  the  revenues  of  the  United  States." 1  Jhe  bill  was_ 
intended  to  repeal  or  nullify  the  specie  circular.  The  friends  of 
the  measure  had  declared  it  to  mean  that  the  deposit  banks  and 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  must  receive  the  notes  of  all  specie 
paying  banks  in  payment  of  duties  or  for  public  land.  The  Presi- 
dent on  the  other  hand  held  that  the  bill  merely  permitted  the 
secretary  and  the  deposit  banks  to  receive  the  notes  of  specie  pay- 
ing banks.  In  this  position  he  was  supported  by  the  Attorney 
General,  who,  however,  considered  the  meaning  of  the  bill  ambigu- 
ous and  liable  to  misinterpretation.  The  President  did  not  review 
the  bill  either  as  interpreted  by  himself  and  the  Attorney  General, 
or  as  interpreted  by  its  friends.  He  declared  it  to  be  ambiguous, 
and  vetoed  it  for  that  reason^  It  is  not  difficult,  however,  to  read 
between  the  lines  of  the  message  that  the  President's  real  objec- 
tion to  the  measure  was  that  it  nullified  the  specie  circular.2 

The  disposition  made  of  this  veto  message  is  somewhat  remark- 
able and  strictly  Jacksonian.  It  was  signed  within  fifteen  minutes 
of  the  end  of  the  President's  term  of  office.  He  could  not  send  it 
to  the  existing  Congress,  and  when  the  next  Congress  met,  Jack- 
son would  be  a  private  citizen  without  opportunity  to  submit  a 
pocket  veto  message.  He  was  determined,  however,  that  his  views 
on  the  subject  should  be  left  on  record ;  he  therefore  caused 
the  message,  together  with  the  bill  and  the  Attorney  General's 
opinion  on  it  to  be  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State.3  It  is 
the  only  instance  in  which  a  veto  message  has  been  thus  preserved  • 
instead  of  in  the  journals  of  one  or  both  of  the  Houses. 

June  23,  1862,  President  Lincoln  vetoed  a  bill  entitled,  "An 
act  to  repeal  that  part  of  an  act  of  Congress  which  prohibits  the 
circulation  of  bank  notes  of  a  less  denomination  than  five  dollars 
in  the  District  of  Columbia."4  The  President  objected  to  the  bill 
on  the  ground  that  if  a  few  banks  were  privileged  to  issue  such 
notes,  all  the  banks  in  the  District  would  issue  them,  whether 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  21. 

2  Bolles,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  350. 

8  Senate,  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  151. 
4  Appendix  A,  No.  50, 


8o  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

with  or  without  authorization,  and  that  it  would  be  impracticable 
to  prevent  such  unauthorized  issue.  The  natural  effect  would  be 
a  deterioration  of  the  currency  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  to 
the  serious  injury  of  trade.  The  President  further  suggested  that 
the  object  contemplated,  namely,  providing  the  District  with  small 
bills,  could  be  easily  and  unobjectionably  attained  by  government 
issues.  * ' 

§  61.  Inflation  bill.  —  April  22,  1874,  President  Grant  vetoed 
what  is  commonly  known  as  the  inflation  bill,1  providing  that  the 
issue  of  legal  tender  notes  and  of  national  bank-notes  should  each 
be  increased  to  four  hundred  million  dollars.  The  President 
pointed  out  that  the  bill  practically  increased  the  paper  circulation 
of  the  .country  one  hundred  million  dollars,  and  would  eventually 
lead  to  a  still  greater  inflation  of  the  currency.  His  fear  was  justi- 
fied. For  it  is  a  fact  proved  by  experience  that  the  more  irre- 
deemable paper  a  government  issues,  the  greater  is  the  call  for  it, 
and  the  greater  the  apparent  scarcity  of  money. 

The  President  added  that  not  only  was  he  opposed  to  inflation 
on  principle,  but  that  in  this  particular  instance  the  government 
had  practically  pledged  itself  to  contract  the  irredeemable  cur- 
rency instead  of  inflating  it.  In  support  of  his  assertion,  he 
quoted  the  statement  made  by  Secretary  McCulloch  at  the  close 
of  the  war  to  the  effect  that  specie  payment  should  be  resumed 
as  soon  as  possible ;  and  the  warm  approval  of  that  principle  by  , 
the  House  of  Representatives  on  December  5,  i865.2  Further- 
more, on  March  18,  i869,3  Congress  had  passed  an  act  which 
solemnly  pledged  the  faith  of  the  United  States  to  make  provision 
at  the  earliest  practicable  period  for  the  redemption  of  the  United 
States  notes  in  coin. 

Inflation  was  urged  upon  Congress  by  the  "debtor  class,"4  — 
a  class  which  at  that  time  may  even  have  included  some  Con- 
gressmen. Throughout  the  country  men  were  eager  for  inflation 
as  a  means  of  raising  prices,  and  thus  diminishing  their  burdens 
of  debt.5  The  President  had  argued  incidentally  that  inflation 
would  impair  the  obligation  of  contracts,  both  public  and  private. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  92. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  39  Cong.,  I  sess.,  10. 
8  1 6  Stats,  at  Large,  I. 

4  House  Report,  43  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  328. 

6  Bolles,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  285. 


§§  60-62.]  Inflation  Bill  81 

Arguments  put  forward  in  Congress  indicated  not  only  that  the 
measure  might  impair  the  obligation  of  contracts,  but  that  such 
impairment  was  its  very  object.  The  Constitution  wisely  prohibits 
such  legislation  by  the  States ;  and  justice  to  the  creditors  of  the 
nation,  and  regard  to  the  honor  of  the  government  demand  that 
the  United  States  should  not  be  less  scrupulous,  except  in  the 
face  of  the  most  urgent  national  danger. 

The  veto  is  to  be  commended  not  only  on  financial  grounds 
and  as  a  defence  of  the  national  honor ;  nor  merely  because  it 
prevented  an  unwarranted  interference  with  existing  contracts  ; 
but  on  strictly  constitutional  grounds.  At  the  time  the  inflation 
bill  was  passed,  the  issue  of  irredeemable  notes  as  legal  tender  was 
considered  unconstitutional,  except  as  a  necessary  incident  of  the 
exercise  of  the  war  power.1  Hence  President  Grant  declared  the 
inflation  bill  not  warranted  by  the  Constitution.  The  fact  that 
the  issue  of  legal  tender  notes  by  the  government  has  since  been 
declared  constitutional  for  all  purposes  did  not  make  it  so  in  1872. 
The  Constitution  is  a  growth,  upon  a  basis  represented  by  the 
written  document,  and  the  growth  has  been  rapid  in  many  direc- 
tions in  the  past  fifteen  years.  Changes  have  been  introduced  by 
custom  and  by  interpretation,  without  going  through  the  wellnigh 
impossible  process  of  formal  amendment.  Thus  the  principle  seems 
established  by  legislation  and  confirmed  by  judicial  decision,  that 
Congress  may  make  government  notes  legal  tender.2  President 
Grant's  position  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  legal  tender  issues 
by  the  government  was  therefore  sound  according  to  the  principles 
generally  accepted  in  1872. 

§  62.  The  Bland  silver  bill.  —  President  Grant's  veto  practically 
disposed  of  inflation  through  irredeemable  paper,  and  was  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  strength  of  the  veto.  But  although  the  green- 
back party  rapidly  became  a  thing  of  the  past,  the  determination 
to  increase  the  currency  remained,  and  took  on  the  somewhat 
altered  form  of  the  silver  movement.  One  of  the  measures  which 
resulted  was  known  as  the  Bland  Silver  Bill.  It  passed  Congress 
in  February,  1878,  and  was  vetoed  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  the 
same  month.3 

1  See  12  Wall.,  457;  also,  the  resolutions  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  Sec- 
retary McCulloch's  statement,  to  which  reference  is  made  above. 

2  1 10  U.  S.  Reports,  421. 
8  Appendix  A,  No.  1 1 7. 


82  Veto  Power :  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

President  Hayes  placed  the  veto  purely  on  grounds  of  expedi- 
ency. The  proposed  dollar  was  worth  from  eight  to  ten  cents  less 
than  a  gold  dollar.  The  President  pointed  out  that  in  time,  even 
at  the  limited  rate  at  which  it  was  to  be  coined,  the  silver  must 
drive  out  the  gold,  in  accordance  with  the  law,  so  frequently  exem- 
plified in  our  own  financial  history,  that  the  less  valuable  money  will 
drive  the  more  valuable  from  circulation.  The  result  of  this  process 
would  be  an  increase  in  prices  and  a  corresponding  scaling  of  debts, 
both  public  and  private,  contracted  on  a  gold  basis. 

The  President  then  referred  to  the  public  debt,  which  had  been 
contracted  in  gold,  ,and  which  the  national  honor  demanded  should 
be  paid  in  coin  of  equal  value  with  gold.1  Furthermore,  the  Presi- 
dent pointed  out  that  when,  in  his  administration,  bonds  to  the 
amount  of  about  $225,000,000  were  refunded  at  4  per  cent,  the 
government  authorized  the  statement  that  the  government  would 
not  "  sanction  or  tolerate  the  payment  of  either  the  principal  or  in- 
terest of  those  bonds  in  any  coin  of  less  value  than  gold."  Should 
the  depreciation  likely  to  result  from  the  bill  set  in,  these  obliga- 
tions might  be  cancelled  by  offering  a  smaller  value  in  silver.  By  a 
decided  vote  of  both  Houses,  the  act  was  passed  over  the  veto,  and 
during  the  last  twelve  years  has  been  in  operation.  Gold  has  not 
yet  been  driven  out ;  but  once  or  twice  the  Government  has  been 
very  near  the  point  where  it  would  have  had  to  pay  its  regular  dis- 
bursements on  the  public  debt  in  silver.2  Should  the  time  ever 
come  when  gold  shall  have  completely  disappeared  from  circula- 
tion, the  evils  predicted  by  the  President  may  arise.  So  far,  the 
growth  of  business  has  absorbed  the  additional  currency ;  and  the 
use  of  certificates  has  prevented  the  silver  specie  from  becoming 
burdensome. 

§  63.  Expenditure  of  public  money.  —  The  power  of  taxation  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  hedged  about  by  many 
specific  provisions  as  to  the  manner  and  uniformity  of  levy.  The 
appropriation  power  is,  on  the  contrary,  in  its  nature  connected 
with  the  exercise  of  all  the  other  forms  of  government.  Money 
may  be  spent  in  war,  in  the  public  service,  for  national  objects  of 

1  Mr.  Bolles  points  out  that  it  was  intended  by  both  parties  to  the  contract  —  i.e.,  the 
United  States  and  the  buyers  of  the  bonds  —  that  they  should  be  paid  in  gold.   Financial 
History  of  the  United  States,  III,  391. 

2  February,  1884,  and  August,  1884.    Mill,  Principles  of  Political  Economy  (Laugh- 
lin's  edition),  323. 


§§  62-64.]  Silver  Bill  and  Expenditures.  83 

all  kinds.  Special  interests  push  doubtful  measures :  private  in- 
dividuals beg  for  relief  or  reward.  The  loose  and  irresponsible 
method  of  conducting  financial  legislation  by  unrelated  committees 
leads  to  waste.  It  is,  therefore,  not  strange  that  the  largest  single 
class  of  vetoes  relates  to  the  expenditure  of  public  money. 

In  addition  to  the  riders  upon  appropriation  bills,  which  are, 
strictly  speaking,  financial  measures,1  the  most  important  vetoes  of 
this  kind  are  those  affecting  the  payment  of  claims  on  the  govern- 
ment, those  affecting  pensions,  and  those  affecting  internal  im- 
provements. 

§  64.  French  spoliation  claims.  —  The  first  of  these  vetoes  in 
point  of  time  were  those  of  the  French  spoliation  bills.  In  the 
course  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  three  sets  of  claims  arose  against 
France  for  illegal  seizure  of  vessels  and  other  violations  of  neutral 
rights.  The  first  set,  arising  from  1793  to  1800,  were  considered  in 
the  negotiation  of  1800.  With  the  counter  claim  of  France  upon 
the  United  States  for  the  non-performance  of  the  guaranty  of  the 
treaty  of  1778,  these  demands  were  reserved  for  future  negotiation.2 
The  hot-headed  blundering  of  the  Senate  and  the  shrewd  manage- 
ment of  Bonaparte  caused  the  United  States  afterward  altogether 
to  abandon  recourse  to  France ; 3  and  the  merchants  and  others 
aggrieved  then  looked  to  the  United  States  for  reimbursement. 
Their  request  was  admitted  to  be  just,4  and  attempts  were  made  at 
various  times  to  secure  appropriations  to  satisfy  it ;  but  it  was  not 
until  1846  that  a  bill  was  passed.  It  was  vetoed  by  President  Polk 
Aug.  8,  i846.5  He  objected  to  the  bill  in  the  first  place  because 
the  claims  had  been  before  Congress  for  many  years,  and,  if  just, 
would  have  been  paid  long  before ;  in  the  second  place,  he  urged 
that,  at  that  precise  moment,  the  country  needed  all  its  funds  to 
prosecute  the  Mexican  War.  A  third  objection  was  that  the  pay- 
ment was  to  be  made  in  land  scrip,  which,  in  the  President's  opin- 
ion, would  prevent  the  settlement  of  the  public  land,  and  would  be 
unjust  to  the  States  within  whose  boundaries  the  public  land  lay. 
Finally  the  President,  with  a  sudden  and  suspicious  thoughtfulness 
for  the  claimants,  argued  that  the  bill  was  unjust  to  them,  since  it 

1  See  ante,  §  35. 

2  Henry  Adams,  Administration  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  I,  360-363. 
8  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  479. 

4  Ibid.,  I,  479,  note. 
6  Appendix  A,  No.  32. 


84  Veto  Power :  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  ivi 

obliged  them  to  relinquish  all  other  claims  upon  the  payment  of 
those  included  in  the  bill. 

In  1855  Congress  again  passed  a  bill  for  the  satisfaction  of 
these  claims.  It  was  vetoed  by  President  Pierce.1  He  reiterated 
all  the  reasons  which  President  Polk  had  advanced  against  the 
measure,  dwelling  with  special  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  such 
noble  patriots  as  Madison  and  Jefferson  would  not  have  allowed 
the  claims  to  go  unsatisfied  if  they  had  been  just,  but  quietly  ignor- 
ing the  fact  that  Congress  must  pass  the  necessary  acts  before 
any  President  could  approve  them. 

The  veto  message  then  reviewed  the  history  of  the  whole  dis- 
cussion between  France  and  the  United  States,  and  came  to  the 
following  conclusions.  The  United  States,  by  the  Consular  Con- 
vention of  1800,  did  not  give  up  the  claims  of  American  citizens 
against  the  French,  nor  agree  to  satisfy  them  herself ;  all  the  pre- 
tensions which  the  French  could  be  brought  to  consider  valid  were 
allowed  by  France  in  1803  ;  and  it  was  the  allowances  then  made 
and  paid  which  the  present  bill  proposed  to  satisfy  a  second  time. 
In  short,  President  Pierce  was  satisfied  that  the  United  States 
had  fully  discharged  her  duty  to  her  citizens  in  pressing  their 
claims;  that  France  had  honorably  paid  all  just  demands;  and 
that  for  these  reasons  the  bill  should  be  vetoed. 

The  President's  conclusions  were  erroneous.  In  the  first  place, 
the  Convention  of  1800  did  surrender  the  claims  of  the  American 
ship-owners.  Clause  2  of  that  Convention  provided  that  the 
spoliation  question  should  be  left  open  for  future  settlement.  The 
United  States  Senate  struck  out  this  clause.  Napoleon  ratified 
the  treaty,  adding  a  proviso  to  the  effect  that  by  the  retrenchment 
of  the  second  article  each  country  was  understood  to  renounce  the 
pretensions  which  constituted  its  object.2  The  United  States  Sen- 
ate ratified  the  treaty  with  this  proviso  attached,  thus  abandoning 
the  claim  which  the  President  said  had  not  been  renounced. 

In  regard  to  the  argument  that  in  1803  France  agreed  to  pay 
for  all  the  claims  which  she  could  be  brought  to  consider  valid, 
the  answer  is  complete.  The  sum  which  France  promised  to  pay 
was  for  debts  3  owed  by  France  to  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  did  not  include  spoliation  claims.  Indeed,  it  expressly 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  56. 

2  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  479. 

8  United  States  Treaties  and  Conventions,  280,  Art.  I. 


§§  64-66.]  French  Spoliation  Claims.  85 

excluded  indemnity  for  prizes  whose  condemnation  had  been 
confirmed.1 

§65.  Relief  bills.  —  Under  the  Constitution  no  appropriation 
of  money  can  be  made  except  by  Congress.  It  follows  that  no 
claim  can  be  paid  without  express  provision  of  law.  Hence  a  con- 
siderable part  of  our  legislation  is  made  up  of  private  acts  for  the 
benefit  or  relief  of  individuals.  Since  1861  the  usual  number  of 
such  acts  has  been  increased  by  claims  arising  out  of  the  war. 
Many  of  the  measures  have  been  intended  to  relieve  persons  from 
obligations  to  the  United  States,  or  from  punishments  inflicted  by 
the  United  States  laws  ;  others  are  for  the  purpose  of  reimbursing 
soldiers  and  contractors  for  pecuniary  loss  suffered  in  the  national 
service.  As  one  would  naturally  expect,  there  have  been  among 
these  measures  many  which  defrauded  the  government  of  money, 
or  unjustly  relieved  individuals  from  their  obligations  to  the  gov- 
ernment, or  from  their  disabilities  under  the  law.  The  veto  has 
been  freely  used  in  preventing  the  acknowledgment  of  these  spuri- 
ous claims,  and  has  in  this  service  amply  justified  its  existence. 
The  vetoes  of  relief  bills  can  be  roughly  divided,  according  to  the 
grounds  upon  which  they  rested,  into  five  classes. 

§  66.  Bills  defrauding  the  government  of  money.  —  The  first  class 
includes  those  bills  which  would  have  fraudulently  secured  from 
the  government  a  grant  of  money,  and  also  those  which  would  un- 
justly  have  relieved  individuals  from  contract  obligations  to  the 
United  States.2  It  comprises,  therefore,  all  such  measures  as 
would  have  unfairly  deprived  the  government  of  money.  This 
class  is  very  well  illustrated  by  the  veto  numbered  80.  The  bill 
granted  money  to  the  children  of  John  M.  Baker  for  his  services 
as  charge1  d*  affaires  in  Rio  Janeiro  in  1834.  The  facts  were  that 
he  had  not  been  chargt  d'affaires  in  that  year,  and  on  the  contrary 
had  been  forbidden  to  enter  into  diplomatic  correspondence  with 
Brazil.  The  bill  was  very  properly  vetoed  by  President  Grant. 
Another  example  is  the  bill  granting  exorbitant  remuneration  to 
contractors  for  furnishing  supplies  to  the  Kansas  Indians.3  The 

1  United  States  Treaties  and  Conventions,  Art.  V. 

2  No  less  than  twenty-eight  such  bills  have  been  vetoed;   the  first  in  Pierce's  admin- 
istration, eight  by  Grant,  seventeen  by  Cleveland.     Appendix  A,  Nos.  37,  47,  49,  76,  77, 
80,  86,  89,  93,  98,  101,  133,  210,  250,  271,  272,  278,  282,  291,  299,  316,  346,  366,  372, 
388,  390,407,411. 

3  Appendix  A,  No.  93. 


86  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

second  section  of  the  first  class  includes  bills  relieving  individuals 
from  contract  obligations.  Among  them  is  a  bill  to  relieve  certain 
mail  contractors  from  loss  suffered  in  complying  with  the  terms  of 
their  contract.1  The  loss  was  caused  by  curtailing,  in  accordance 
with  a  provision  of  the  contract,  the  number  of  trips  made  by  the 
mail-carriers.  Another  bill  excused  a  revenue  collector  from  the 
use  of  that  degree  of  diligence  which  the  law  required  him  to 
exercise,  or,  in  other  words,  absolved  him  from  the  results  of  his 
own  carelessness/1 

§  67.  Bills  relieving  deserters  from  the  army.  —  The  second  class 
includes  four  bills  relieving  deserters  from  the  United  States  Army 
from  the  legal  effect  of  their  desertion.3  One  of  these  bills  was 
passed  over  the  veto  on  the  ground  that  the  man  was  not  a  de- 
serter.4 

§  68.  Bills  relieving  former  army  officers  of  disability.  —  Two 
bills  were  vetoed  whose  object  was  the  restoration  of  former  army 
officers  to  the  active  list,  by  relieving  them  of  disabilities.5  The 
latter  of  these  bills  was  for  the  relief  of  Fitz  John  Porter,  and 
is  of  considerable  constitutional  interest,  from  the  fact  that  it 
quite  openly  attempted  to  appoint  Porter  to  his  old  position  in  the 
Army.  This  question  has,  however,  already  been  considered.6 
Porter  had  been  found  guilty  by  a  court-martial  duly  appointed 
and  composed  of  officers  of  distinguished  ability,  and  the  sentence 
had  been  approved  by  President  Lincoln.  President  Arthur,  in 
view  of  these  facts,  vetoed  the  bill,  not  only  because  it  usurped 
executive  authority,  but  because  in  relieving  Porter  it  "established 
a  dangerous  precedent,  calculated  to  imperil  in  no  small  measure 
the  binding  force  and  effect  of  the  judgments  of  the  various  tribu- 
nals established  under  our  constitution  and  laws."  7 

§  69.  Bills  carelessly  drawn.  —  Several  relief  bills  have  been 
vetoed  because  they  were  so  carelessly  drawn  that  they  would  not 
have  accomplished  their  intended  objects.8  The  bill  for  the  relief 
of  Daniel  H.  Kelly  may  be  taken  as  an  example.  It  was  passed 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  49.  2  Ibid.,  No.  89. 

3  Ibid.,  Nos.  94,  97,  103,  114.     These  vetoes  were  all  in  the  administration  of  Gen- 
eral Grant,  who  may  be  supposed  to  have  felt  a  special  interest  in  cases  of  military 
discipline. 

4  Appendix  A,  No.  103.  5  Ibid.,  Nos.  106,  132. 

6  Ante,  §  29. 

7  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  457  b. 

8  Appendix  A,  Nos.  79,  113,  124,  307. 


§§  66-7i.]  Relief  Bills.  87 

• 

to  benefit  Kelly's  heirs,  but  it  was  pointed  out  in  the  paper  accom- 
panying the  veto  message  that  the  bill  as  it  stood  would  be  of  no 
advantage  to  them. 

§  70.  Miscellaneous  relief  bills.  —  The  last  class  includes  vetoes 
which  could  not  be  fairly  classified  under  any  of  the  preceding 
heads.1  Two  of  the  bills  were  for  the  extension  of  patents  which 
the  needs  of  the  government  and  the  public  welfare  seemed  to 
demand  should  not  be  extended.  Several  of  the  bills  were  to 
compensate  the  owners  of  houses  and  other  property  destroyed  on 
the  ground  of  military  necessity  by  the  United  States  armies  in 
the  Civil  War.  These  bills  came  up  in  President  Grant's  adminis- 
tration, and  he  objected  to  them  on  the  ground  that  the  destruc- 
tion was  necessary,  and  was  for  the  public  good,  and  that  if  the 
bills  were  approved  it  would  open  the  way  for  the  presentation  of 
a  vast  number  of  similar  and  equally  good  claims,  calling  for  the 
expenditure  of  very  large  sums  of  money.  The  veto  for  the  relief 
of  Major  J.  T.  Turner  gave  rise  to  the  very  interesting  question  of 
parliamentary  law  as  to  whether  a  President  could  recall  a  veto 
message  before  Congress  had  voted  upon  it.  The  question  will 
be  discussed  in  a  later  chapter.2 

§  71.  Pension  vetoes.  —  With  the  exception  of  five  unimportant 
bills  disapproved  by  President  Grant,  no  bill  granting  a  pension 
has  been  vetoed  by  any  President  save  Cleveland.  For  this  fact 
there  are  several  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  the  veterans  of  the 
previous  wars  almost  invariably  received  land  where  now  pensions 
would  be  granted.  Furthermore,  the  government,  before  1861, 
was  never  rich  enough  to  enter  upon  an  extensive  system  of  money 
pensions.  After  the  Civil  War  the  circumstances  were  altered. 
Good  public  land  was  no  longer  abundant ;  the  government,  owing 
to  the  prosperous  condition  of  the  country,  rapidly  and  easily  accu- 
mulated large  sums  of  money.  This  circumstance  naturally  gave 
rise  to  a  system  of  pensions  on  a  large  scale.  With  the  increasing 
surplus,  less  and  less  scrutiny  was  bestowed  on  private  pension 
bills.  In  consequence  a  very  great  number  of  wholly  unworthy 
claims  received  the  assent  of  Congress,  and  it  was  against  this 
rising  tide  of  fraudulent  or  unnecessary  pensions  that  President 
Cleveland  set  himself. 


1  Appendix  A,  Nos.  74,  84,  85,  88,  90,  91,  109,  116  (Grant);   373,  406  (Cleveland). 

2  Post,  §  108. 


88  Veto  Power: — Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

• 

The  pension  vetoes  comprise  two  hundred  and  thirty-three  of 
the  four  hundred  and  thirty-three  vetoes  enumerated  in  Appendix 
A,  and  for  the  purposes  of  discussion  they  have  been  divided  into 
the  following  five  classes. 

§  72.  Bills  conveying  no  benefit.  —  The  first  group  includes 
thirty-four  bills  which  would  have  been  of  no  benefit  to  the  claim- 
ant, either  because  of  some  technical  fault  in  the  bill  itself,  or 
because  the  proposed  beneficiary  would  receive  at  least  as  great  a 
pension  under  some  general  law  as  under  the  special  act,  or  be- 
cause the  pension  under  the  general  law  would  begin  to  run  at  a 
much  earlier  date  than  under  the  special  act.1 

§  73.  Unnecessary  increase  of  pensions.  —  The  third  class  in- 
cludes ten  bills  increasing  pensions  which  in  the  President's  opin- 
ion were  already  large  enough.2 

§  74.  Injuries  not  received  "in  the  line  of  duty."  —  The  fourth 
and  largest  group  of  bills  includes  those  granting  compensation 
for  injuries  which  had  not  been  received  while  "in  military  service 
and  in  the  line  of  duty."  Here  are  found  the  greatest  number, — 
one  hundred  and  seventy-five,  —  and  the  most  important  of  Presi- 
dent Cleveland's  pension  vetoes.  It  was  in  regard  to  these  bills 
that  the  President  and  Congress  came  squarely  into  conflict.3 

§  75.  Dependent  relatives:  dependency  not  proved.  —  Congress 
passed  many  bills  granting  pensions  to  persons  who  claimed  to 
be  dependent  for  their  support  upon  soldiers  killed  or  disabled 
in  the  war.  Six  of  these  bills  failed  to  obtain  the  President's 
approval  because  the  "  dependency  "  of  the  person  pensioned  upon 
the  injured  soldier  was  not  made  out.4 

§  76.  Miscellaneous  pension  bills.  —  There  are  a  few  bills  which 
do  not  come  legitimately  under  any  of  the  preceding  heads.  One 
granted  back  pay  unjustly;6  another  was  the  claim  of  an  alleged 

1  Appendix  A,  Nos.  81,  82,  83,  95,  104  (Grant),  137,  168,  178, 189,  194, 196,  204,  208, 
21 1, 219,  233,  248,  249,  255, 258,  265,  266,  267, 275,  284,  290,  318,  337,  340, 358,  391,  400, 
424,  430  (Cleveland). 

2  Appendix  A,  Nos.  138,  160,  165,  203,  242,  268,  269,  270,  323,  432  (Cleveland). 

8  Appendix  A,  Nos.  140-155, 159, 162-164,  l66»  IO7>  169-177,  179-181,  183-188, 
190-193,  195,197-202,205,  207,  209,212-218,220-226,228-231,  238-241,243-246, 
251-254,  256,  257,  259,  260,  263,  274,  279,  281,  283,  285-289,  292,  295,  296,  297,  300, 
324,  327,  329,333-336,338,  339-342,343,348-356,  359,  360,363-365,  367-371,375- 
385,  392-396,  398,  399,  402-405,  408-410,  412,  413,  415,417-423,426-429,  431 
(Cleveland). 

*  Appendix  A,  Nos.  161,  182,  206,  247,  264,  280  (Cleveland).  6  Ibid.,  No.  156. 


§§  7«-77-]  Pensions.  89 

widow  who  proved  not  to  be  a  widow ; l  a  third  was  the  claim  of  a 
woman  who  had  had  a  pension  as  the  widow  of  a  soldier  killed  in 
.  the  war,  but  who  had  lost  her  pension  by  remarrying,  and  who 
now  wished  it  renewed,  although  she  was  still  married  and  was 
living  with  her  husband.2  Five  granted  pensions  to  men  who  had 
deserted  from  the  army.3 

§  77.  The  Dependent  Pension  Bill.  —  The  most  important  of  all 
the  pension  bills  which  encountered  the  veto  was  not,  however,  a 
private  act  for  the  benefit  of  an  individual,  but  a  general  and  far- 
reaching  law.  February  n,  1887,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a 
bill  entitled,  "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  dependent  parents  and 
honorably  discharged  soldiers  and  sailors  who  are  now  disabled 
and  dependent  upon  their  own  labor  for  support."4  The  bill 
granted  service  pensions  to  all  honorably  discharged  soldiers  and 
sailors  who  were  not  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act,  or 
who  should  not,  at  any  future  time,  be  capable  of  supporting 
themselves  by  their  own  labor,  and  who  are  dependent  on  their 
daily  labor  for  support,  regardless  of  whether  they  had  received 
any  injury  in  the  service  or  even  had  been  engaged  in  battle. 
The  President  objected  to  the  bill  in  the  first  place  because  in  his 
estimation  the  wording  of  the  proposed  law  was  so  indefinite  as  to 
give  rise  to  conflicting  constructions,  and  to  be  liable  to  unjust 
and  mischievous  application.  In  support  of  his  statement  he 
quoted  the  conflicting  opinions  in  regard  to  the  operation  of  the 
bill  expressed  on  the  floors  of  Congress.5  The  looseness  of  phra- 
seology, and  the  fact  that  the  proof  necessary  for  the  establish- 
ment of  claims  was  largely  within  the  knowledge  of  the  claimants 
alone,  would  still  further  stimulate  fraudulent  applications  for  pen- 
sions and  put  a  "premium  on  dishonesty  and  mendacity."6  The 
President  argued  also  that  the  bill  was  uncalled  for,  because  the 
soldiers  of  the  Civil  War  had  been  better  provided  for  by  pay  and 
bounty  than  any  other  soldiery  "since  mankind  first  went  to  war," 
and  because  most  ample  laws  had  been  passed  which  granted  pen- 
sions for  any  injury  actually  received  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States.  Lastly,  the  President  pointed  out  that  the  expense  of 
the  proposed  law  would  probably  be  many  times  the  estimate.  In 
support  of  this  argument,  he  cited  the  case  of  the  pension  granted 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  330.  2  Ibid.,  No.  389. 

3  Ibid.,  Nos.  343,  357,  361,  397,  416.  4  Ibid.,  No.  261. 

6  House  Journal,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  571.  6  Ibid.,  572. 


go  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

in  1853  to  the  widows  of  the  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary  War, 
which  had  cost  the  government  nearly  eight  times  as  much  as  had 
been  expected. 

The  debate  in  Congress  over  the  veto  was  very  sharp.1  The 
opponents  of  the  veto  were  both  indignant  and  outspoken ;  they 
called  attention  to  the  President's  inconsistency  in  signing  the 
Mexican  War  service  pension  bill,  and  characterized  his  objections 
as  flimsy ;  they  charged  him  with  favoring  the  solid  South  and 
Wall  Street. 

§  78.  President  Cleveland's  pension  policy.  —  In  his  veto  of  the 
Dependent  Pension  Bill,  President  Cleveland  took  a  bold  stand 
against  a  popular  measure,  in  behalf  of  economical  government. 
The  same  general  principles  appear  in  the  vetoes  of  private 
pension  bills,  classified  in  paragraphs  71  to  76  above.  There  the 
President  repeatedly  and  clearly  stated  what  he  considered  to  be 
the  wise  policy ;  and  it  was  in  the  discussion  of  these  vetoes  that 
the  congressional  hostility  to  the  policy  was  manifested. 

The  position  of  the  executive  may  be  briefly  defined  as  a  desire 
to  check  the  indiscriminate  and  often  fraudulent  granting  of  pen- 
sions. In  the  veto  of  a  bill  granting  a  pension  to  Elizabeth  S. 
De  Krafft,  the  President  says :  "  In  reviewing  the  pension  legisla- 
tion presented  to  me,  many  bills  have  been  approved  upon  the 
theory  that  every  doubt  should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  pro- 
posed beneficiary.  I  have  not,  however,  been  able  to  entirely 
divest  myself  of  the  idea  that  the  public  money  .  .  .  should  be 
devoted  to  the  indemnification  of  those  who  in  the  defence  of  the 
union  have  worthily  suffered."  2  Again  he  says  :  "  Every  relaxa- 
tion of  principle  in  the  granting  of  pensions  invites  applications 
without  merit  and  encourages  those  who  for  gain  urge  honest  men 
to  become  dishonest.  Thus  is  the  demoralizing  lesson  taught  that 
as  against  the  public  treasury  the  most  questionable  expedients 
are  allowable."  3  The  President  was,  in  short,  attempting  avowedly 
to  defend  the  public  money,  the  public  morals,  and  the  disabled 
soldier. 

The  President's  policy  was  severely  attacked  in  Congress^  on 
the  ground  that  his  conclusions  as  to  the  unjustifiable  character 

1  Congressional  Record,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  2200,  2202,  2210,  2222. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  168;  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53, 
p.  489. 

8  Ibid. 


§§  77-79-]  President  Cleveland's  Pension  Policy.  91 

of  the  pensions  were  incorrect ;  and  that,  even  if  these  conclusions 
had  been  correct,  his  overruling  of  congressional  decisions  on 
matters  of  fact  was  unconstitutional.1  Both  of  these  charges 
must  be  examined. 

§  79.  Expediency  of  the  pension  vetoes.  —  The  first  charge  is 
of  no  very  great  weight.  The  Senate  Committee  in  their  elaborate 
report  admit  that  the  President  was  legally  correct,  but  claim 
that  Congress  should  be  allowed  for  equitable  reasons  to  be  more 
lenient  than  the  laws  which  it  had  enacted.  A  reading  of  the 
messages  and  an  examination  of  the  evidence  will  however  con- 
vince any  candid  person  that  even  on  equitable  grounds  the  Pres- 
ident was  in  most  cases  correct.  At  the  time  the  report  of  the 
Senate  Committee  was  made,  the  President  had  vetoed  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-six  pension  bills.2  Out  of  these,  the  Senate  could 
find  only  seven  bills  in  which  the  apparent  injustice  of  the  veto 
was  sufficient  to  make  them  the  subject  of  investigation.  One 
of  these  bills  was  ultimately  discovered  to  have  been  wisely  vetoed, 
thus  leaving  six  bills  in  the  treatment  of  which  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee claimed  that  the  President  had  been  unjust.3  The  con- 
clusion seems  inevitable  that  in  one  hundred  and  thirty  cases  the 
President  was  correct,  not  only  as  a  matter  of  law,  but  also  as  a 
matter  of  justice.  The  information  on  which  the  President  acted 
was  in  almost  every  case  derived  from  the  pension  office ;  and  a 
few  illustrations,  which  are  chosen  almost  at  random  and  might  be 
multiplied  indefinitely,  will  show  more  clearly  than  argument  why 
the  Senate  Committee  was  unable  to  point  to  any  considerable 
number  of  cases  where  the  veto  was  unwisely  used.  William 
Bishop  was  enrolled  as  a  substitute  in  Indianapolis  and  served 
nine  days,  when  he  was  attacked  with  the  measles ;  he  was 
shortly  afterward  mustered  out.  Fifteen  years  later  the  claimant 
suddenly  discovered  that  his  attack  of  measles  had  some  relation 
to  his  army  enrollment,  and  that  his  disease  had  settled  in  his  eyes 
and  affected  his  spinal  column.4  In  another  case  a  former  soldier 
was  accidentally  shot  and  killed  by  a  neighbor  who  was  attempting 


1  Senate  Report,  50  Cong.,  I  sess.,  No.  1667. 

2  Ibid.,  1667,  3. 

8  These  bills  are  Nos.  310,  289,  315,  281,  309,  and  280  of  Appendix  A. 
*  Appendix  A,  No.  177;  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No. 
53>  P-  478. 


92  ^  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

to  shoot  an  owl.  The  widow  claimed  a  pension.1  Again,  James 
O'Shea  applied  for  a  pension  on  the  ground  of  a  sabre-wound  and 
a  gun-shot  wound  received  in  1862  while  serving  in  the  army. 
There  was  no  evidence  that  the  man  ever  received  the  wounds,  a 
fact  which  the  committee  reporting  the  bill  admitted ;  but  in  spite 
of  the  facts,  they  were  of  the  opinion  "  that,  situated  as  he  was, 
he  was  very  liable  to,  and  very  probably  did  receive  the  wound."  2 
These  illustrations  show  the  foundation  upon  which  most  of  the 
vetoed  bills  rested.  All  sorts  of  diseases  and  calamities  are  traced 
by  an  almost  impossible  chain  of  circumstances  to  service  in  the 
army,  one  woman  tracing  her  husband's  death  by  drowning  to 
rheumatism  contracted  in  the  service,  and  claiming  a  pension  in 
consequence.3 

§  80.  Constitutionality  of  the  pension  vetoes.  —  In  regard  to  the 
second  charge,  the  members  of  the  Senate  Committee  had  more  to 
say.  They  declared  that  "  it  cannot  be  maintained  upon  any  fair 
construction  of  the  Constitution  that  the  power  of  executive  disap- 
proval ought  to  be  exercised  upon  acts  of  this  character  for  the 
sole  reason  that  the  President  differs  in  opinion  from  Congress 
upon  a  mere  question  of  the  weight  of  testimony,  or  upon  the  expe- 
diency of  a  special  act,  which  subserves  a  proper  general  purpose 
and  which  imperils  no  power  of  any  other  department."4  They 
further  argued  that  the  veto  had  been  granted  to  the  President  as 
a  protection  to  the  executive  and  to  prevent  the  passage  of  notori- 
ously bad  or  unconstitutional  laws,  and  that  President  Cleveland's 
policy  implied  that  a  factious  or  usurping  President  might  right- 
fully subordinate  the  legislature  to  his  will  by  an  exercise  of  the 
veto.5 

It  is  only  necessary  to  go  back  to  President  Johnson's  time  to 
refute  the  last  argument.  The  statement  with  regard  to  the 
intended  scope  of  the  veto  power  is  more  difficult  to  meet,  for  it  is 
true  that  in  1789  the  veto  was  regarded  as  a  means  of  protecting 
the  executive  and  the  Constitution,  and  was  seldom  used  when  the 
question  was  simply  one  of  expediency.  The  gradual  increase  of 

1  House  Journal,  50  Cong.,  i  sess.,  1811;  Appendix  A,  No.  292. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  153;   Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No. 

53>  P-  476. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  496;   Appendix  A,  No.  179. 

4  Senate  Report,  50  Cong.,  I  sess.,  1667,  p.  2. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  3,  4. 


§§  79-^2.]  Discussion  of  Pension    Vetoes.  ,  93 

the  number  of  vetoes  based  on  expediency  will  be  elsewhere  con- 
sidered.1 It  is  sufficient  in  the  present  connection  to  notice  that 
this  long  growth  culminated  in  President  Cleveland's  pension 
vetoes.  Here  we  find  Congress  protesting  against  what  it  calls  an 
unconstitutional  use  of  the  veto.  It  is,  however,  a  use  which  is 
permitted  by  the  Constitution,  which  has  frequently  been  made, 
which  has  become  more  common  of  late  years,  and  in  which  Presi- 
dent Cleveland  persisted  unchecked  up  to  the  day  of  his  retirement 
from  office.  As  a  result,  we  must  admit  what  indeed  has  been  con- 
ceded practically  for  many  years,  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution  in  this  particular,  as  in  so  many  others,  has  somewhat 
changed,  and  that,  in  the  future,  the  right  of  a  President  to  veto  a 
bill  on  grounds  of  expediency  cannot  be  questioned. 

§  8 1.  Summary  of  the  question  of  pension  vetoes.  —  The  con- 
clusion in  regard  to  President  Cleveland's  pension  vetoes  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows :  The  facts  in  the  various  cases  would  war- 
rant the  refusal  of  the  President  to  approve  the  bills  on  grounds  of 
expediency,  and  the  present  interpretation  of  the  Constitution 
admits  the  right  of  the  President  to  assign  reasons  of  expediency 
for  a  refusal  to  approve  a  bill.  Furthermore,  the  President's  action 
was  exceedingly  timely.  In  the  first  place,  it  saved  the  country 
from  what  was,  to  put  the  bes^t  construction  on  it,  a  large  and  use- 
less expenditure  of  money.  The  great  service  which  the  pension 
vetoes  performed,  however,  was  in  checking  the  spirit  of  reckless 
pension  legislation.  The  great  prominence  which  they  gave  to  the 
question  emphatically  called  the  attention  of  the  country  to  it,  gave 
rise  to  a  strong  sentiment  against  the  reckless  granting  of  pensions, 
quickened  the  Congressional  conscience,  and  made  it  more  difficult 
for  doubtful  claims  to  succeed. 

§  82.  Commercial  powers.  —  It  is  very  remarkable  that,  while 
the  Presidents  have  relentlessly  vetoed  financial  measures  of  all 
kinds,  the  only  great  classes  of  bills  affecting  commerce  which 
have  been  selected  for  executive  disapprobation  are  the  tariffs  and 
the  bills  for  internal  improvements.  Shipping  acts,  embargoes, 
bankruptcy  acts,  and  railroad  acts  have  passed  unquestioned.  The 
tariff  bills  have  already  been  considered  under  the  head  of  taxation,2 
since  the  veto  messages  covering  them  have  treated  them  rather  as 
financial  than  as  commercial  measures.  Internal  improvement  bills 

1  Post,  §§  121,  123.  2  Ante,  §  53. 


94  Veto  Power: — Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

have  formed  one  of  the  most  numerous  classes,  and  present  a  well- 
defined  succession  of  vetoes  through  many  administrations. 

Before  taking  up  internal  improvements,  however,  it  may  be 
well  to  dispose  of  a  few  minor  acts  relating  to  commerce. 

July  i,  1882,  President  Arthur  vetoed  a  bill  to  regulate  the  car- 
riage of  passengers  by  sea,  on  the  ground  that  the  measure  was 
drawn  in  such  ignorance  of  the  existing  method  of  building  ocean 
steamers  that  its  provisions  would  render  useless  for  passenger 
traffic  all  the  modern  ocean  steamships.1 

May  17,  1886,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  making  Spring- 
field, Mass.,  a  port  of  delivery,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  produce 
confusion  and  uncertainty  in  the  adjustment  of  customs  duties,  and 
lead  to  irritating  discriminations  and  probable  loss  to  the  govern- 
ment.2 

§  83.  Internal  improvements.  —  The  appropriation  bills  so  far 
considered  have  authorized  government  expenditures  for  the  bene- 
fit of  individuals,  as,  for  example,  the  pension  bills  and  the  French 
spoliation  bills.  Another  class  contains  those  bills  which  have 
authorized  expenditures  ostensibly  for  the  benefit  of  all.  These 
are  the  bills  appropriating  money  for  internal  improvements  j  they 
are  bills  which  have  been  important  and  numerous  almost  since  the 
foundation  of  the  government,  and  have  frequently  met  with  strong 
opposition  from  the  executive.  They  have  called  for  the  expendi- 
ture of  enormous  sums  of  money,  and  are  exemplified  at  the  pres- 
ent time  by  River  and  Harbor  bills  and  by  bills  for  the  erection 
of  public  buildings. 

§  84.  Madison's  veto  of  a  general  bill.  —  The  first  distinct  meas- 
ure for  internal  improvements  was  i;hp  Cumberland  Road  Act.o£. 
1806.  The  first  veto  was  interposed  by  Madison  in  i8i7.3  The 
measure  was  entitled,  "An  act  to  set  apart  and  pledge  certain 
funds  for  internal  improvements." 

The  bill  is  important  as  marking  the  real  rise  of  the  question  of 
internal  improvements.  On  all  sides  it  was  admitted  that  internal 
improvements  should  be  made,  but  there  was  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion as  to  whether  the  Constitution  authorized  the  expenditure  of 
money  for  that  purpose.  The  supporters  of  the  bill  held  that  it 
was  constitutional  because  its  object  was  to  improve  internal 
commerce  between  the  States  and  to  provide  for  the  common 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  130.  2  Ibid.,  No.  139.  8  Ibid.,  No.  8. 


§§  82-85.]  Madison  on  Internal  Improvements.  95 

defence.  Calhoun  argued  that  the  Constitution  should  be  con- 
strued "with  plain  good  sense,"  and  that,  under  such  a  construc- 
tion, Congress  had  power  to  construct  roads  and  canals  as  a  means 
of  providing  for  the  general  welfare.1 

JThe  President,  in  his  veto  message,  maintained,  as  he  had  sug- 
gested in  his  annual  message  ot  December  3,  i8i6,2  that  the  gov- 
ernment should  undertake  internal  improvements ;  but  he  argued 
that  it  could  not  be  done  without  a  constitutional  amendment.  He 
maintained  that  it  could  not  be  included  under  the  authority  of 
Congress  to  regulate  commerce ;  for  the  present  bill  was  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  roads  and  canals,  or,  in  other  words,  of 
creating  commerce,  which  he  considered  a  very  different  thing 
from  regulating  it.  Furthermore,  the  President  did  not  think  that 
the  power  could  be  included  under  the  general  welfare  clause. 
Such  a  view  "would  be  contrary  to  the  established  and  consistent 
rules  of  interpretation,  as  rendering  the  special  and  careful  enu- 
meration of  powers  which  follows  the  clause,  nugatory  and  im- 
proper";3 it  would  embrace  every  act  "within  the  purview  of  a 
legislative  trust";4  and  would  give  Congress  complete  power  on 
every  matter  not  specially  excepted,  whereas  the  Constitution  par- 
ticularly reserves  to  the  States  all  powers  not  conferred  on  Con- 
gress nor  prohibited  to  the  States.5 

The  President  was  close  upon  the  end  of  his  term  of  office  when 
he  wrote  the  message.  There  is  every  appearance  that  he  intended 
it  as  a  warning  against  too  free  an  application  of  the  principle  of 
implied  powers  in  support  of  the  doctrine  that  internal  improve- 
ments should  be  carried  on  by  the  national  government. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that,  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
President's  veto  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Speaker, 
Henry  Clay,  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  to  vote.  There  was 
no  tie,  but  he  asserted  that  the  question  of  the  passage  of  a  bill 
over  the  President's  veto  differed  in  its  nature  from  every  other 
question  which  could  come  before  the  House.6 

§  85.  Monroe's  Cumberland  Road  veto.  Constitutionality  of  im- 
provements. —  May  4,  1822,  President  Monroe,  in  his  only  veto 

1  Von  Hoist,  Life  of  Calhoun,  36-37. 

2  Statesman's  Manual,  I,  335. 

3  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  17. 

4  Ibid.  6  Amendment  X. 

6  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  18;  also  Annals  of 
Congress,  14  Cong.,  2  sess.,  1062.  The  question  is  further  considered  postt  §  no. 


96  Veto  Power:  —  'Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

message,  refused  to  sig-n  "An  act  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of 
the  Cumberland  Road."1  .The  President  held  that  Congress  had 
ajponstitutional  right  to  make  appropriations  for  internal  improve-^ 
ments,  provided  it  had  the  consent  of  the  Stat;e_in  which  the  im- 
provement  was  to  be  made.  But  the  present  bill  went  further,  and 
established  tolls  and  provided  for  their  collection.  In  the  Presi- 
dent's opinion,  it  was  implied  that  Congress  had  a  complete  right 
of  jurisdiction  and  sovereignty  over  the  land  of  the  various  States 
for  all  the  purposes  of  internal  improvement  ;  the  bill  was  therefore 
unconstitutional.  Jn  short,  the  President  considered  that  Congress 
had  the  constitutional  power  to  "apply  money"  to  internal  im- 
provements, but  did  not  have  authority  to  construct  them.  Itwais 
a  reflection  of  what  Dr.  Von  Hoist  calls  the  "  quibble  over  words,"  2 
which  characterized  the  internal  improvement  discussions  of  that 
time.  In  conclusion,  the  President  pointed  out  the  advantage  of 
having  internal  improvements  carried  on  by  the  national  govern- 
ment ;  and,  like  Madison,  he  recommended  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment to  enable  this  to  be  done. 

President  Moprne's  position  is  essentially  different  frnrp  that 
of  President  Madison.  The  latter  considered  it  unconstitutional, 
for  Congress  to  make  internal  improvements  in  any  way.  He  did 
not  recognize  any  distinction  between  "  appropriating  money  "  for, 
and  "  constructing,"  internal  improvements.  Indeed,  this  fine  dis- 
tinction was  created  to  avoid  the  constitutional  difficulty  raised  by 
President  Madison.  The  country  demanded  an  improvement  of 
its  means  of  internal  communication,  and  it  was  necessary  to  find 
some  way  out  of  the  hard-and-fast  doctrine  laid  down  by  Madison. 
To  admit  the  constitutional  right  and  then  to  hedge  it  about  with 
limitations  of  detail  seemed  to  Monroe  a  statesmanlike  way  of 
meeting  the  difficulty.  His  doctrine  gave  way,  however,  to  a 
broader  view  ;  the  difference  between  "appropriating"  and  "  con- 
structing "  was  lost,  and  the  only  question  was  :  Does  Congress 
have  the  constitutional  authority  to  appropriate  money  for  internal 
improvements  ?  And,  as  we  shall  see,  this  query  resolved  itself 
into  the  question  whether  the  intended  improvement  was  or  was 
not  national  in  its  character. 

§  86.    Jackson's  vetoes.     Jurisdiction  and  local  character.  —  May 
President    Tackson  vetoed  a  bill  entitled,  "An  act  to 


1  Appendix  A,  No.  9. 

2  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  389. 


§§  85, 86.]  Monroe  on  Internal  Improvements.  97 

authorize^  subscription  nf  stQjjfJrn  jthe_May_sville,  Washington, 
Paris,  and  Lexington  Turnpike  Road  Company."  1  In  this  message, 
the  President  laid  it  down  as  a  well-settled  rule  that  the  UnitecL 
States  could  not  assume  jurisdiction  over  State  territory  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  or  maintaining  internal  improvements.    He 

l:hen  went  on  to  say  that  Uo~hgress  had  power  to  appropriate  money 
for  internal  improvements  whenever  the  objects  were  "general, 
not  local ;  national,  not  State."  2  Although  this  principle  had  been 
referred  to  by  President  Monroe,3  it  was  now  for  the  first  time 
clearly  laid  down  as  that  by  which  to  test  the  constitutionality  of 
internal  improvements.  President  Jackson  considered  the  meas- 
ure before  him  local  in  its  character,  and  in  accordance  with  his 
new  rule  he  vetoed  it.  He  closed  his  message  with  an  appeal  for 
a  constitutional  amendment  to  define  clearly  the  limits  of  the  im- 
portant power  over  internal  improvements. 

When  the  message  came  up  for  consideration  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  a  most  bitter  controversy  took  place.  The  debate 
had  little  or  no  bearing  on  the  merits  of  the  veto,  and  was  hardly 
more  than  a  personal  attack  on  the  President  by  his  enemies,  and 
a  violent  defence  of  him  by  his  friends.4 

Jffiav  ^ir  18^0.  President  Jackson  vetoed  a  bill  authorizing  a 
subscription  of  stock  in  the  Washington  Turnpike  Road  Com- 

jflny.5  For  his  reasons  in  this  case  the  President  referred  Con- 
gress_to  his  veto  of  the  Maysville  Road  bill" 

December  7,  1830,  the  President,  in  his  annual  message,  gave 
his  reasons  for  the  pocket  veto  of  two  bills  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  entitled  respectively,  "An  act  making  appropriations 
for  building  light-houses,  light-boats,  beacons,  and  monuments, 
placing  buoys,  and  for  improving  harbors  and  directing  surveys  "  ; 6 
and  "  An  act  to  authorize  a  subscription  of  stock  for  the  Louisville 
and  Portland  Canal  Company."  7  These  bills  were  vetoed  like  the 
twp^alreadv  considered,  because  in  the  opinion  of  the  President  a 
portion  of  the  authorized  expenditure  was  tor  purely  local  improve- 
ments. 

The  last  of  Jackson's  internal  improvement  veto  messages  is  by 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  10. 

2  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  79. 
8  Ibid.,  61. 

4  Congressional  Debates,  1829-30,  Vol.  VI,  Part  II,  1140-1147. 

5  Appendix  A,  No.  n.  6  Ibid.,  No.  12.  7  Ibid.  No.  13. 


98  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

far  the  most  interesting.  In  it  he  expresses  clearly  his  conception 
of  a  constitutional  internal  improvement,  and  applies  the  principle 
with  true  Jacksonian  simplicity.  December  i,  1834,  in  his  annual 
message,  the  President  sent  to  Congress  his  reasons  for  failing  to 
sign  at  the  last  session  a  bill  entitled,  "  An  act  to  improve  the  navi- 
gation of  the  Wabash  River."  1  In  this  message  the  President 
divides  the  constitutional  question  into  three  parts.  He  discusses 
in  the  first  place  the  "power  of  the  national  government  to  make 
internal  improvements  within  the  limits  of  a  State,  with  the  right 
of  territorial  jurisdiction  sufficient  at  least  for  their  preservation 
and  use";  secondly,  the  right  of  appropriating  money  in  aid  of 
such  works  when  carried  on  by  a  State,  or  by  a  company  in  virtue 
of  State  authority,  without  claim  of  national  jurisdiction ;  thirdly, 
the  propriety  of  making  appropriations  for  light-houses,  beacons, 
public  piers,  and  for  the  removal  of  sand-bars  and  other  temporary 
obstructions  in  navigable  rivers  and  harbors.  Jackson's  position 
on  the  first  two  points  has  been  sufficiently  explained  in  connec- 
tion with  his  previous  vetoes.  He  did  not  think  the  government 
had  any  jurisdiction  over  the  improvements,  but  nevertheless 
thought  that  money  might  be  appropriated  for  improvements  of  a 
national  character.  He  again  insists  that  there  should  be  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  defining  national  improvements,  and,  in  his 
discussion  of  the  third  point,  lays  down  a  curious  rule  for  deter- 
mining, in  the  case  of  river  and  harbor  improvements,  those  that 
are  national  in  character.  Expenditures  of  this  character,  he  said, 
must  be  confined  to  places  below  the  ports  of  entry  or  delivery 
established  by  law.  Since  the  improvement  authorized  by  the  bill 
under  discussion  was  to  be  made  at  a  point  on  the  Wabash  River 
above  any  port  of  entry  or  delivery,  the  President  concluded  that 
the  bill  was  unconstitutional.  The  utter  futility  of  this,  or  indeed 
of  any  hard-and-fast  principle,  was  demonstrated  the  day  after  the 
reception  of  the  President's  message.  The  Senate  introduced  a 
resolution  for  the  improvement  of  the  Wabash  River  identical  with 
the  vetoed  measure,  and  included  in  it  a  provision  making  Lafay- 
ette, which  is  situated  higher  up  on  that  river,  a  port  of  entry.2 
The  resolution  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  never  acted  upon  by 
the  House.  The  episode  not  only  illustrates  the  worthlessness  of 
the  President's  criterion,  but  also  the  impossibility  of  securing  an 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  18. 

2  Senate  Miscellane9us  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  149. 


§§  86, 87.]  Jackson  on  Internal  Improvements.  99 

amendment  of  the  Constitution  sufficiently  definite  to  meet  the 
President's  suggestion.  Indeed,  if  it  could  be  secured,  such  an 
amendment  would  not  be  desirable,  for  the  Constitution  is  a  docu- 
ment embodying  broad  principles,  and  does  not  attempt  to  settle 
questions  of  detail  or  of  expediency. 

§  87.  Tyler's  vetoes.  Improvement  of  water-ways.  —  Like  Madi- 
son  and  Monroe,  Jackson  was  not  consistent  in  his  vetoes.  They 
all  three  approved  other  bills  not  different  in  principle  from  those 
vetoed.  Appropriations  continued  under  Van  Buren  and  Tyler, 
and  it  was  not  till  late  in  the  administration  of  the  latter  that  we 
find  another  veto  of  an  internal  improvement  bill.  June  n,  1844, 
President  Tyler  returned,  with  his  objections,  "An  act  making 
appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  certain  harbors  and  rivers."  1 

In  the  first  place,  the  President  argued  that  to  appropriate 
money  for  the  improvement  of  streams  is  to  exercise  United  States 
jurisdiction  over  them,  and  is  accordingly  unconstitutional.  This 
conclusion  is  unsound  ;  for  the  bill  merely  appropriated  money,  and 
in  no  way  claimed  authority  over  the  land  or  water  of  any  State. 
The  supporters  of  the  measure  contended  that  it  came  under 
the  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  gives  Congress  power  to  regu- 
late commerce  with  foreign  nations,  among  the  several  States,  and 
with  the  Indian  tribes.  The  President  demurred,  on  the  ground 
that  "the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  this  grant  is  that  Congress 
may  adopt  rules  and  regulations  prescribing  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions on  which  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  may  carry  on 
commercial  relations  with  foreign  States  or  Kingdoms,  and  on 
which  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  foreign  States  or  Kingdoms  may 
prosecute  trade  with  the  United  States,  or  either  of  them.  But 
the  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  several  States  no  more 
vests  Congress  with  jurisdiction  over  the  water-courses  of  the 
States  than  the  first  branch  of  the  grant  gives  authority  over  the 
waters  of  foreign  powers."2  Comment  on  this  remarkable  state- 
ment is  scarcely  necessary.  At  the  time  it  was  written  it  was 
well-settled  law  that  navigation  and  intercourse  upon  the  national 
navigable  water-ways  is  under  the  regulating  control  of  Congress 
whenever  the  water-way  is  not  limited  to  a  single  State.8 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  29. 

2  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  182;  Appendix  A, 
No.  29. 

3  Cooley's  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,  65;  Gibbons  v,  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  I  (1824). 


ioo  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

In  closing  his  message  the  President  hints  at  a  reason  upon 
which  the  message  might  have  rested,  namely,  that  the  bill  appro- 
priated money  for  improvements,  some  of  which  are  purely  local 
in  character.  This  was  a  recognition  of  the  principle  which  was 
referred  to  by  President  Monroe  and  adopted  by  President  Jack- 
son, and  which  has  since  become  the  main  criterion  in  deciding  as 
to  the  constitutionality  of  internal  improvements. 

§  88.  Folk's  vetoes.  Local  improvements.  —  August  3,  1846, 
President  Polk  vetoed  a  bill  making  appropriations  for  the  im- 
provement of  certain  harbors  and  rivers.1  The  President  refused 
his  sanction  to  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  its  provisions  were  local 
and  not  national  in  character.  In  endeavoring  toxdetermine  what 
are  national  river  and  harbor  improvements  he  revived  President 
Jackson's  test,2  and  attempted  to  improve  upon  it.  He  admitted 
that  many  times  ports  of  entry  had  been  created  on  paper  only, 
and  for  the  sole  purpose,  of  making  some  intended  improvement 
plausible.  He  then  went  on  to  say  that  if  the  test  be  a  sound  one 
it  could  apply  only  to  bays,  inlets,  and  rivers  connected  with  or 
leading  into  such  ports  as  actually  have  foreign  commerce.3  This 
amendment  hardly  improves  the  test,  since  it  would  never  be  diffi- 
cult to  develop  a  foreign  trade,  even  from  a  " paper  port"  of  entry, 
sufficient  to  satisfy  the  Congressional  conscience.  This  veto  mes- 
sage met  with  strong  opposition  in  the  House,4  but  mainly  from 
those  Congressmen  whose  districts  would  have  received  appropria- 
tions under  the  bill. 

On  December  15,  1847,  President  Polk  sent  to  Congress  his 
reasons  for  not  signing  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  a  bill  en- 
titled, "  An  act  to  provide  for  continuing  certain  works  in  the 
Territory  of  Wisconsin,  and  for  other  purposes."  5  The  bill  was  a 
typical  river  and  harbor  bill,  and  appropriated  only  six  thousand 
dollars  for  continuing  works  in  Wisconsin,  and  more  than  half  a 
million  for  improving  in  other  States  rivers  and  harbors,  many  of 
which  were  unknown  and  valueless. 

The  President  considered  that  when  the  country  was  borrowing 
money  to  carry  on  a  war,  as  was  the  case  at  that  time,  large  sums 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  31. 

2  Ante,  §  86. 

8  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  188. 

4  Congressional  Globe,  29  Cong.,  I  sess.,  1183-1189. 

5  Appendix  A,  No.  33. 


§§  87-89.]  Tyler  and  Polk  on  Improvements.  101 

should  not  be  appropriated  for  improvements.  He  then  took  up 
the  constitutional  question  :  he  apparently  admits  the  authority  of 
Congress  to  appropriate  money  for  national  improvements,  but 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  draw 
any  line  or  principle  between  deepening  a  harbor  capable  of  admit- 
ting only  small  sailing  craft,  and  deepening  a  harbor  capable  of 
receiving  large  ships.  "  I  cannot  perceive,"  he  says,  "  any  inter- 
mediate ground.  The  power  to  improve  harbors  and  rivers  for 
purposes  of  navigation  .  .  .  must  be  admitted  without  other  limi- 
tation than  the  discretion  of  Congress,  or  it  must  be  denied  alto- 
gether." 1  This  difficulty  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of  fact  and 
not  into  a  settlement  of  constitutional  points.  The  constitutional 
rule  is  plain  enough,  but  Polk  seemed  to  think  the  selection  of 
suitable  places  so  far  beyond  the  wisdom  of  Congress  that  he 
considered  it  unwise  for  the  national  government  to  engage  in 
making  internal  improvements.  The  President,  however,  recog- 
nized that  some  works  were  indispensable,  and  suggested  that  the 
States  be  allowed  to  lay  tonnage  duties  for  this  purpose.  The 
States  may,  under  the  Constitution,  lay  such  duties,  with  the  con- 
sent of  Congress,2  and  the  President  referred  to  many  instances 
where  that  consent  had  been  given.3  In  conclusion,  he  advocated 
the  passage  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  granting  Con- 
gress the  power  to  appropriate  money  for  internal  improvements, 
in  States  in  which  it  was  impossible  to  lay  tonnage  duties. 

The  debate  on  this  message  was  of  no  particular  moment.  It 
was  enlivened  by  a  sharp  speech  of  Mr.  Schenck,4  in  which  he 
classified,  in  an  amusing  manner,  the  various  tests  as  to  the  consti- 
tutionality of  internal  improvements,  and  concluded  by  practically 
including  all  improvements  as  national  in  their  influence. 

§  89.  Pierce's  vetoes.  Implied  powers.  —  Had  Tyler  been  in 
sympathy  with  the  party  which  chose  him,  he  would  not  have  op- 
posed internal  improvements ;  the  next  Whig  Presidents,  Taylor 
and  Fillmore,  vetoed  no  bill  of  any  kind.  Fillmore's  Democratic 
successors,  however,  again  set  forth  the  doctrine  to  which  their 
predecessors,  Jackson  and  Polk,  had  given  life. 

1  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  198. 

2  Constitution,  Art.  I,  Sec.  10,  Clause  2. 

8  Thirteen  instances  are  referred  to  where  tonnage  duties  were  laid  with  the  consent 
of  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  internal  improvements  by  Mass.,  Va.,  N.  C.,  S.  C,  Ga. 
4  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.,  I  sess.,  37. 


IO2  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

August  4,  1854,  President  Pierce  vetoed  a  bill  making  appro- 
priations for  the  completion  of  certain  public  parks.1  December 
30,  1854,  the  President  sent  to  Congress  a  careful  statement  of 
his  reasons  for  vetoing  the  bill,  and  at  the  same  time  took  occasion 
to  state  his  position  on  the  question  of  internal  improvements. 
He  held  that  the  national  government  should  not  make  appropria- 
tions for  internal  improvements,  unless  the  improvements  were 
necessary  to  the  execution  of  the  enumerated  powers  of  Congress.2 
The  President's  principle  seems  to  be  that  when  an  improvement 
was  plainly  and  directly  for  the  benefit  of  the  army  or  the  navy, 
or  was  necessary  for  the  establishment  of  post  roads  or  the  regu- 
lation of  commerce,  it  was  constitutional.  He  does  not  in  terms, 
call  the  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors  for  commercial  purposes 
unconstitutional,  but  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  that,  in  most  cases, 
such  improvements  would  be  unauthorized.  In  closing  his  message 
the  President  recommends  a  return  "  to  the  primitive  idea  of  Con- 
gress, which  required,  in  this  class  of  public  work,  as  in  all  others, 
a  conveyance  of  the  soil,  and  a  cession  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States."3  Furthermore,  he  advised  that  the  appropriation 
for  each  work  be  made  in  a  separate  bill.4  The  advantages  of  the 
last  suggestion  are  obvious,  and  in  recent  years  the  attempt  has 
frequently  been  made  to  accomplish  much  the  same  end,  by  allow- 
ing the  President  to  veto  items  in  appropriation  bills.5 

In  May  and  August,  1856,  President  Pierce  vetoed  five  internal 
improvement  bills.6  The  President,  in  accordance  with  the  rule 
which  he  laid  down  in  his  message  of  December  30,  1854,  objected 
to  the  bills  now  under  discussion,  because  they  were  not  directly 
essential  to  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  but  were  parts 
of  a  general  system  of  internal  improvements.  Congress  was  not 
in  a  mood  to  submit  to  the  President's  views,  and  it  passed  each 
of  the  five  bills  over  the  veto ;  this  was  the  first  case  in  which  an 
internal  improvement  veto  had  failed  to  check  legislation. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  35. 

2  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  225. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  234.  *  Ibid.,  p.  235. 

8  See  post,  §  134.  There  was  practically  no  discussion  of  this  message  in  Congress, 
Congressional  Globe,  33  Cong.,  2  sess.,  161. 

6  May  19,  Mouth  of  the  Mississippi  River,  Appendix  A,  No.  38.  May  19,  Channel 
over  the  St.  Clair  Flats,  Appendix  A,  No.  39.  May  22,  Channel  over  St.  Mary's  River 
Flats,  Appendix  A,  No.  40.  August  n,  Des  Moines  River,  Appendix  A,  No.  41.  Au- 
gust 14,  Patapsco  River,  Appendix  A,  No.  42. 


§§  89-91-]          Pierce  and  Buchanan  on  Improvements.  103 

Several  interesting  points  of  procedure  came  up  on  the  passage 
of  the  bills  over  the  veto.  On  the  consideration  of  the  first  one 
(May  19,  1856)  the  President  of  the  Senate  decided  that  the  bill 
would  pass  if  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present,  instead  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  entire  Senate  voted  in  favor  of  it.  An  appeal  was 
taken  from  the  ruling,  but  it  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  34  to  7,1 
and  remains  the  principle  accepted  by  the  best  interpreters  of 
the  Constitution.2 

The  Senate  on  the  consideration  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  mes- 
sages (August  II  and  14)  failed  in  the  first  attempt  to  pass  the 
bill  over  the  veto.  In  each  case,  however,  the  vote  was  reconsid- 
ered several  days  later,  and  the  necessary  two-thirds  majority  was 
obtained.3 

§  90.  Buchanan's  vetoes.  Constitutional  grounds.  —  February  I, 
1860,  President  Buchanan  sent  to  the  Senate  his  reasons  for  fail- 
ing at  the  last  session  of  Congress  to  sign  an  act  making  appro- 
priation for  the  deepening  of  the  channel  over  the  Saint  Clair 
Flats,  in  Michigan.4  The  channel  had  already  been  improved, 
and  the  present  bill  was  to  provide  for  additional,  and  in  the 
President's  opinion,  unnecessary,  dredging.  More  than  this,  he 
considered  the  bill  unconstitutional.  For  his  reasons  on  the  latter 
point,  he  referred  to  President  Folk's  veto  of  December  15,  i847,5 
in  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  President  Polk  argued  that  it  was 
unconstitutional  for  the  national  government  to  carry  on  any  in- 
ternal improvements,  and  advocated  the  authorization  of  State 
tonnage  duties.  The  President  restated  Polk's  reasoning  at  some 
length,  and  added  nothing  to  it. 

February  6,  1860,  President  Buchanan  sent  to  the  Senate  a 
message  stating  that  he  had  failed  to  sign  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress  a  joint  resolution  appropriating  money  for  removing 
obstructions  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River,  for  the 
reasons  set  forth  in  his  veto  message  of  February  i,  i86o.6 

§  91.  Grant's  veto  and  refusal  to  carry  out  a  bill.  —  From  i860 
to  1882  there  were  no  internal  improvement  vetoes.  The  neces- 

1  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  p.  255. 

2  Post,  §  109. 

8  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  53,  pp.  257,  258,  post,  §  1 1 1. 

4  Appendix  A,  No.  45. 

5  Ante,  §  87. 

6  Appendix  A,  No.  46. 


IO4  Veto  Power: — Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

sities  of  the  Civil  War  cut  off  this  form  of  expenditure;  and 
when  in  1870  the  finances  of  the  government  permitted  the  re- 
sumption of  the  policy,  the  Republican  party  was  found  in  much 
the  same  attitude  as  that  of  the  Whigs.  August  14,  1876,  Presi- 
dent Grant  in  signing  a  river  and  harbor  bill  protested  strongly 
against  certain  of  its  provisions.  In  the  first  place  he  objected  to 
numerous  appropriations  in  the  bill  which  were  for  improvements 
in  no  sense  national.  In  the  second  place  the  President  doubted 
the  advisability  of  making  any  appropriations  further  than  to  pro- 
vide for  the  protection  of  works  already  finished  and  paid  for,  in 
view  of  the  probable  falling  off  of  the  internal  revenue.  The 
President  declared  that  he  would  not  have  approved  the  bill  had 
it  been  obligatory  upon  the  executive  to  spend  all  the  money 
appropriated  by  Congress.  Since  he  was  not  under  such  an 
obligation,  the  President,  although  he  had  signed  the  bill,  informed 
Congress  that  he  should  take  care  that,  during  his  term  of  office 
at  least,  no  public  money  should  be  expended  upon  improvements 
which  were  not  of  a  national  character.  This  was  a  new  way  of 
defeating  the  provisions  of  an  internal  improvement  bill,  and  it 
was  a  means  that  could  be  made  very  effective  during  at  least  one 
administration. 

The  authority  under  which  President  Grant  made  the  state- 
ment is  found  in  the  first  paragraph  of  the  act  which  reads  :  "the 
following  sums  of  money  .  .  .  are  hereby  appropriated,  to  be  paid 
out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to 
be  expended  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  for  the 
repair,  preservation,  construction,  and  completion  of  the  following 
works."1  It  may  seem  like  an  unwarranted  stretching  of  the 
sense  of  the  clause  to  make  it  mean  that  the  executive  may  do  as 
he  chooses  about  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  a  bill ;  but  no 
objection  was  made  to  the  President's  interpretation.  Indeed,  it 
has  become  the  practice  of  the  executive  to  withhold  expenditures 
upon  works  plainly  of  no  value;  but  the  open  avowal  made  by 
President  Grant  of  his  determination  not  to  carry  into  effect  a 
law  duly  passed  by  Congress  and  approved  by  himself,  has  not 
been  repeated.2 

§  92.  Arthur's  veto.  Local  objects.  —  A  few  years  later,  the 
appropriations  had  so  increased  in  amount  that  President  Arthur 

1  19  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  132. 

2  Gen.  Grant  vetoed  an  unimportant  internal  improvement  bill  (App.  A,  No.  102) 
on  the  ground  that  the  objects  of  the  appropriations  were  most  of  them  local. 


§§  9 1 -94-]  Improvements  and  Public  Buildings.  105 

felt  compelled,  August  I,  1882,  to  veto  a  river  and  harbor  bill. 
His  reason  for  this  action  was  that  the  bill  contained  provisions 
of  a  purely  local  character,  and  was  therefore  unconstitutional. 
The  bill  was  promptly  passed  over  the  veto.  In  the  next  session 
the  Senate  took  the  unusual  course  of  calling  upon  the  President 
to  name  the  items  in  the  bill  which  he  considered  of  local  impor- 
tance. The  President  pointed  out  items  aggregating  almost  one 
million  dollars.1 

§  93.  Public  buildings.  —  Besides  the  bills  for  the  improvement 
of  various  means  of  communication,  roads,  canals,  and  water-ways, 
Congress  has  passed  a  large  number  of  measures  for  improve- 
ments of  an  entirely  different  kind,  the  construction  of  public 
buildings.  The  first  President  to  check  this  legislation  was  Cleve- 
land. In  the  messages  there  could  of  course  be  no  question  of 
constitutionality ;  the  buildings  authorized  by  the  bills  were  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  United  States  courts,  for  post-offices, 
and  for  revenue  offices  —  buildings  which  Congress  is  expressly 
authorized  to  erect  in  the  different  States  upon  such  sites  as  may 
be  purchased  with  the  consent  of  the  State  legislatures.2  The 
ground  which  the  President  took  in  each  of  the  vetoes  was,  there- 
fore, that  there  was  no  necessity  for  the  erection  of  the  building 
called  for  by  the  bill ;  that  the  needs  of  the  government  were  well 
satisfied,  and  the  proposed  structure  was  merely  to  gratify  local 
pride.  3 

§  94.  General  view  of  internal  improvement  vetoes.  —  Before 
leaving  the  subject,  it  may  be  well  briefly  to  sum  up,  in  so  far 
as  it  is  possible,  the  effect  of  the  internal  improvement  vetoes. 
President  Madison  based  his  dissent  on  the  broad  ground  that  the 
Constitution  as  it  stood  did  not  authorize  such  undertakings  by 
the  national  government.  President  Monroe  agreed  with  the 
principle,  but  held  that  it  applied  to  cases  where  the  United  States 
undertook  to  "construct"  roads  and  canals,  and  not  to  cases 
where  Congress  merely  appropriated  money  for  improvements 
which  were  national  in  character,  and  over  which  Congress  did  not 
claim  jurisdiction.  After  Monroe's  time,  the  distinction  between 
"constructing"  and  "appropriating"  seems  to  have  been  almost 

1  Papers  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  III,  192. 

2  Constitution,  Art.  I,  Sec.  8,  Clause  17. 

3  The  vetoed  bills  were  twelve  in  number:  Appendix  A,  Nos.  157,  158,  227,  234, 
235»  237,  294,  308,  312,  313,  314,  374- 


io6  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

forgotten.  The  constitutional  question  has  been  simply  whether 
Congress  has  the  power  to  appropriate  money  for  internal  improve- 
ments ;  and  the  existence  of  such  authority  has  generally  been 
held  to  depend  on  the  national  character  of  the  proposed  improve- 
ment. The  great  difficulty  has  therefore  been  to  decide  what  was 
rational  ajid^what  was_locjr  President  Jackson's  rule  in  regard 
to  river  improvements  proved  valueless ;  and  President  Polk,  after 
trying  to  find  some  satisfactory  criterion,  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  was  none,  and  that  therefore  internal  improvements 
were  not  provided  for  under  the  Constitution.  As  a  substitute  for 
national  aid  he  recommended  that  the  States  be  allowed  to  lay 
tonnage  duties.  This  plan  was  also  recommended  by  President 
Buchanan,  and  has  many  things  in  its  favor.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  the  principle  of  local  self-government,  which  was  wisely  made 
fundamental  in  our  system,  and  it  would  probably  put  a  stop  to 
much  of  the  reckless  extravagance  in  carrying  out  internal  im- 
provements. The  consent  of  Congress  which  would  still  be  neces- 
sary for  each  State  act  imposing  tonnage  duties  would  probably 
keep  them  uniform  and  just.  President  Pierce  was  more  liberal 
than  Polk,  and  advocated  such  improvements  as  were  essential  to 
the  exercise  of  the  well-defined  powers  of  government — as,  for 
example,  the  war  power.  But  he  lays  down  no  definite  rule,  and 
he  therefore  leaves  the  discussion  in  the  vague  state  against  which 
President  Polk  protested  so  vigorously.  The  recent  internal  im- 
provement vetoes  have  all  been  .based  on  the  local  character  of 
the  bills,  but  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  define  a  "local  pro- 
vision." The  Presidents  have  simply  passed  upon  the  items  before 
them. 

At  present  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  internal  im- 
provements carried  on  by  the  national  government  is  no  longer 
discussed  in  Congress.  By  common  consent  the  question  of  prin- 
ciple is  disregarded,  and  each  state  and  section  of  the  country 
eagerly  seeks  to  obtain  as  much  as  possible  for  itself,  without  much 
thought  of  possible  consequences  in  centralizing  the  power  of  the 
government.  The  real  justification  of  the  internal  improvement 
measures  is  that  they  are  essential  to  the  carrying  out  of  some  of 
the  express  powers  of  government.  Many  of  the  improvements 
are  necessary  incidents  of  the  regulation  of  commerce ;  while 
the  right  to  establish  post  roads  and  the  military  necessities  of 
the  government  have  been  invoked  as  a  warrant  for  others. 


§§  94-96.]  Discussion  of  Internal  Improvements.  107 

§  95.  Measures  based  on  the  general  welfare  clause.  —  The  at- 
tempt has  frequently  been  made  to  justify  internal  improvement 
bills  under  the  general  welfare  clause  of  the  Constitution,  a  use  of 
that  clause  which  several  of  the  veto  messages  have  justly  treated 
as  unwarranted.1  In  spite  of  executive  warnings,  however,  Con- 
gress, becoming  gradually  aware  of  the  great  possibilities  of  this 
indefinite  clause,  has  passed  acts  for  the  relief  of  unfortunate  peo- 
ple. Such  was  the  act  for  the  benefit  of  the  San  Domingo  refu- 
gees, and  the  act  for  the  relief  of  sufferers  from  flood,  which  could 
be  justified  only  under  the  general  welfare  clause.  In  the  internal 
improvement  bills,  the  principle  was  put  forward  as  a  collateral 
reason  for  the  constitutionality  of  the  measures.  In  the  bills  just 
referred  to,  and  in  the  Texas  Seed  bill,  the  general  welfare  clause 
is  put  forward  as  the  sole  constitutional  justification  for  the  pro- 
posed legislation.  The  practice  is  in  substance  an  addition  to  the 
express  powers  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  is 
open  to  grave  objection.  It  is  at  this  point  in  our  system  of  gov- 
ernment that  the  greatest  watchfulness  is  necessary,  lest  a  gener- 
ous impulse  open  the  door  to  the  passage  of  bills  attacking  private 
rights  instead  of  remedying  private  misfortunes.  The  danger  of 
centralization  is  perhaps  a  distant  and  imaginary  one,  but  the  dan- 
gers of  waste,  of  extravagance,  of  discriminations  between  citizens, 
and  of  accustoming  the  people  to  depend  upon  the  government, 
are  certainly  near  and  real. 

§  96.  Texas  Seed  Bill.  —  Against  this  dangerous  tendency  Presi- 
dent Cleveland  set  himself  in  his  veto  of  the  bill  authorizing  a  spe- 
cial distribution  of  seeds  in  the  drought-stricken  counties  of  Texas.2 
The  President  vetoed  the  measure  on  the  ground  that  there  was 
no  warrant  for  such  an  appropriation  in  the  Constitution  ;  that  the 
relief  of  individual  suffering  which  is  not  properly  related  to  the 
public  service  and  benefit  is  not  the  duty  of  the  national  govern- 
ment. He  argued,  further,  that  not  only  is  such  aid  not  justified 
by  the  Constitution,  but  that  it  would  tend  to  weaken  the  sturdi- 
ness  of  our  national  character  and  the  thoughtfulness  of  the  people 
for  each  other.  The -President  closed  by  pointing  out  that  if  Con- 
gressmen wished  to  aid  the  Texans,  they  could  do  so  very  easily 
and  in  an  entirely  constitutional  way  by  transferring  to  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  drought-stricken  districts  their  orders  upon  the 
Commissioner  of  Agriculture  for  seeds. 

1  Ante,  §  84.  2  Appendix  A,  No.  262. 


io8  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  [Ch.  iv. 

When  the  veto  message  came  up  in  the  House,  Mr.  Lapham, 
who  introduced  the  bill,  spoke  briefly  in  opposition  to  the  message.1 
He  referred  to  similar  acts  passed  in  1875  and  1883,  and  said  that 
if  it  was  constitutional  for  the  Department  of  Agriculture  to  dis- 
tribute seeds  at  all,  it  certainly  was  justified  in  this  case.  This 
argument  overlooks  the  fact  that,  by  the  bill,  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  was  not  to  perform  its  regular  work,  but  to  act  as  the 
agent  of  the  government  in  distributing  the  special  appropriation 
made  to  relieve  the  sufferers  in  Texas.  The  veto  was,  however, 
effective  in  checking  the  proposed  legislation  ;  and  it  lays  down  a 
principle  which,  if  observed,  must  be  of  permanent  value  to  the 
country.  The  government  is  too  busy  and  too  remote  to  examine 
into  or  to  relieve  cases  of  individual  distress  ;  and  the  States  which 
leave  the  work  of  charity  to  the  general  government  must  expect 
that  government  also  to  assume  powers  which  the  States  would 
gladly  retain. 

§  97.  War  powers.  —  A  few  bills  have  been  vetoed  which  had 
reference  to  the  exercise  of  the  war  power  of  Congress.  None  of 
these  bills  were  general  in  their  scope,  and  all  of  them  failed  of 
executive  approval  solely  on  the  ground  of  their  inexpediency ; 
no  constitutional  questions  were  touched  upon. 

The  first  military  bill  which  failed  of  approval  was  vetoed  Feb- 
ruary 28,  1797.  It  was  entitled,  "An  act  to  ascertain  and  fix  the 
military  establishment  of  the  United  States."2 

The  President  refused  his  assent  because  the  bill  was  drawn  in 
a  careless  manner,  and  because  the  soldiers  whom  the  bill  pro- 
posed to  muster  out  were  needed  by  the  government.  When  the 
message  was  read  in  the  House,  one  or  two  speakers  thought  that 
the  President's  objections  were  not  well  taken.3  The  debate  was, 
however,  short,  and  it  is  evident  from  the  vote,  that  the  great 
majority  agreed  with  the  President. 

July  2,  1862,  President  Lincoln  vetoed  a  bill  entitled,  "An  act 
to  provide  additional  medical  officers  of  the  volunteer  service.4 
The  President  refused  to  sign  the  bill  because  he  had  already 
approved  one  for  the  same  purpose. 

July  14,   1870,  President  Grant  vetoed  an  act  which  provided 

1  Congressional  Record,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  1875. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  21. 

8  Annals  of  Congress,  4  Cong.,  2  sess.,  2331. 
4  Appendix  A,  No.  51. 


§§  96-98-]  General  Welfare.      War  Powers.  109 

for  the  payment  of  bounties  to  men  in  the  first  and  second  regi- 
ments of  Florida  Cavalry  and  in  the  first  Alabama  Cavalry.1  The 
men  in  these  regiments  or  their  heirs  had  already  received  or  were 
receiving  their  bounties.  The  bill  altered  the  amount  of  the  boun- 
ties in  many  cases,  and  also  the  order  in  which  the  heirs  of  the 
soldiers  should  inherit  the  bounties  :  it  would  therefore  be  exceed- 
ingly difficult,  and  in  many  cases  unjust,  to  apply  the  act;  and  the 
President  vetoed  it.2 

January  15,  1877,  President  Grant  protested  against  a  joint 
resolution  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  War  to  supply  the  Reform 
School  in  the  District  of  Columbia  with  blankets,  on  the  ground 
that  the  act  would  deprive  the  army  of  blankets  which  could  not 
be  spared.3  The  protest  was  not  sent  with  the  resolution,  as  is 
generally  the  case,  but  was  sent  to  'Congress  in  the  manner  of  a 
veto  message,  the  President  retaining  the  resolution.  Later,  the 
President  signed  it,  and  it  became  law. 

The  pension  and  relief  vetoes  are  at  the  same  time  military 
and  financial.  They  have  been  sufficiently  considered  in  the  ear- 
lier pages  of  this  work.4 

§  98.  General  effect  of  the  veto  on  the  exercise  of  the  powers 
of  government.  —  Before  concluding  this  part  of  our  subject,  a 
few  vetoes  must  be  mentioned  which  do  not  fit  into  any  of  the 
preceding  classes,  and  which  are  not  of  sufficient  importance  to 
warrant  separation  into  additional  classes.  The  bills  were  all 
either  needless  or  improperly  drawn.  The  first  of  these  vetoes 
was  interposed  by  President  Lincoln  to  prevent  the  passage  of  a 
bill  which  was  not  drawn  in  a  satisfactory  manner.5  July  20,  1876, 
President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  amending  the  post-office  statutes  on 
the  ground  that  the  bill  as  drawn  would  not  accomplish  its  pur- 
pose.6 April  30,  1886,  President  Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  which 
attempted  to  extend  to  the  city  of  Omaha  privileges  which  it 
already  possessed  under  a  prior  act.7  July  30,  1886,  President 
Cleveland  vetoed  a  bill  providing  for  a  bridge  across  an  arm  of 
Lake  Champlain,  on  the  ground  that  a  bill  for  the  purpose  had 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  75. 

2  For  the  text  of  the  act,  see  Senate  Journal,  41  Cong.,  2  sess.,  1080. 
8  Appendix  B,  No.  9. 

4  Ante,  §§  68,  81. 

5  Appendix  A,  No.  52.  6  Ibid.,  No.  105. 
7  Ibid.,  No.  136. 


HO  Veto  Power:  —  Exercise  of  Powers.  Ch.  iv. 

already  been  approved.1  August  14,  1888,  President  Cleveland 
vetoed  a  joint  resolution  authorizing  the  printing  of  additional 
United  States  maps  of  the  edition  of  i886,2  on  the  ground  that 
the  map  for  1887,  which  was  a  better  and  cheaper  map  than  the 
one  for  1886,  was  all  ready  for  publication. 

All  the  vetoes  affecting  the  powers  of  government  have  now 
been  considered.  It  is  difficult  to  summarize  their  combined  effect, 
because  of  the  variety  of  subjects  considered.  In  regard  to  the 
exercise  of  governmental  authority  over  individuals,  the  President's 
power  has  usually  been  employed  for  the  protection  of  individual 
rights.  In  territorial  affairs  the  veto  for  a  long  time  checked  the 
policy  of  rapid  disposition  of  the  public  lands,  and  attempted  to 
check  the  unwise  admission  of  unripe  States.  In  finance  the  veto 
has  been  used, — with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Jackson's  and 
Tyler's  bank  vetoes,  and  the  French  spoliation  vetoes, — to  protect 
che  funds  of  the  government,  to  secure  a  sound  currency,  and  to 
prevent  extravagant  expenditures.  Almost  the  only  application 
of  the  veto  to  commercial  powers  has  been  in  internal  improvement 
legislation ;  and  here,  though  finally  overcome  by  the  continued 
policy  of  Congress,  the  Presidents  long  set  themselves  against  this 
somewhat  doubtful  use  of  the  powers  of  government.  One  cour- 
ageous stand  has  been  taken  against  the  extension  of  the  general 
welfare  principle.  The  war  powers  had  their  great  development, 
during  the  Civil  War,  with  no  executive  interference. 

In  so  far  as  these  diverse  effects  can  be  summed  up  in  a  word, 
it  may  be  said  that  the  veto  has  been,  used  to  prevent  Congress 
from  unduly  extending  its  authority  ;  that  in  almost  all  cases  it  has 
been  used  wisely  ;  and  that  it  has  failed  only  in  those  cases  in 
which  Congress  has  been  supported  by  a  strong  public  opinion,  or 
in  which  the  majority  of  the  people  took  no  interest. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  236.  2  Ibid.,  No.  392. 


CHAPTER   V. 

CONSTITUTIONAL   PROCEDURE  AS  TO    VETOES. 

§    99.  The  action  of  the  President. 

§  100.   Is  the  exercise  of  the  veto  a  legislative  power? 

§  101.  Constitutionality  of  pocket  vetoes.     The  legal  ten  days. 

§  1 02.    May  a  bill  be  vetoed  without  stating  reasons? 

§  103.    May  a  bill  be  signed  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress? 

§  104.    May  a  President  refuse  to  carry  out  an  act? 

§  105.   The  President's  right  of  protest. 

§  1 06.    Is  the  signature  of  the  President  essential  to  constitutional 

amendments? 
§  107.   The  action  of  Congress. 

§  1 08.    Has  the  Executive  a  right  to  recall  a  veto? 

§  109.   What  is  a  two-thirds  majority? 

§  no.    Has  the  Speaker  a  right  to  vote  on  reconsideration? 

§  in.    Second  reconsideration  of  a  veto. 

§  1 1 2.    Failure  to  enter  the  veto  message  in  the  journal. 

§  113.    Frequent  neglect  of  reconsideration. 
§  114.   Comparative  unimportance  of  constitutional  details. 

§  99.  The  action  of  the  President.  —  The  veto  power  has  been 
in  operation  in  the  government  of  the  United  States  for  more 
than  a  hundred  years  ;  and  in  that  time  many  interesting  questions 
of  procedure  as  to  the  acceptance  and  disallowance  of  bills  have 
arisen  and  have  been  settled.  In  the  present  chapter  the  more 
important  of  these  questions  will  be  discussed.  For  convenience 
those  questions  which  have  arisen  in  regard  to  procedure  between 
the  time  when  the  President  receives  the  bill  and  the  time  when 
he  returns  it  to  Congress  with  his  objections  have  been  grouped 
together;1  while  those  questions  which  relate  to  procedure  after 
Congress  has  received  the  message,  are  placed  in  a  separate  group. 

After  the  passage  of  bills  they  are  enrolled,  formally  engrossed 
and  compared,  signed  by  the  speaker  of  the  House  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  and  finally  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  by  the  committee  on  enrolled  bills  of  that  branch 
of  Congress  in  which  the  bill  originated.2 

1  For  the  practice  in  the  States,  see  Appendix  E,  Nos.  i-io. 

2  McDonald,  Manual  of  the  Senate  (1886),  262. 

[in] 


112  Veto  Power:  —  Procedure.  [Ch.  v. 

§  IOO.  Is  the  exercise  of  the  veto  a  legislative  power?  —  The 
first  question  which  naturally  suggests  itself  is  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  veto  power.  Dr.  Von  Hoist l  maintains  that  the  veto  is  in 
no  sense  a  part  of  the  legislative  power,  since  "  all "  legislative 
power  is  vested  in  Congress.  Mr.  Bryce  in  his  recent  work  seems 
hardly  consistent  on  this  point.  In  one  place  he  speaks  of  the 
President  as  not  at  all  a  part  of  the  legislature ; 2  while  in  another 
place  he  speaks  of  the  President's  veto  power  as  a  legislative 
function.3  Mr.  Bryce  expressly  says  that  by  granting  the  Presi- 
dent the  veto  the  Federal  Convention  made  him  "a  distinct 
branch  of  the  legislature,  but  for  negative  purposes  only.  Thus 
the  executive  was  strengthened,  not  as  an  executive,  but  by  being 
made  a  part  of  the  legislature."  4 

The  latter  view  is  in  itself  the  more  reasonable,  and  better  har- 
monizes with  the  known  deviations  in  the  Constitution  from  the 
strict  principle  of  separation  of  powers.  Thus  the  Senate,  in  im- 
peachments, is  a  judicial  and  not  a  legislative  body.  In  like  man- 
ner the  President  acts  as  a  part  of  the  law-making  power  when  'he 
approves  or  disapproves  an  act.  This  conclusion  is  strengthened 
by  an  examination  of  the  growth  of  the  veto.  Jt  has  been  pointed 
out  in  an  earlier  portion  of  this  work  5  t^^f-jthe  veto  in  the  Federal 
Constitution  was  derived  from  the  State  Constitutions,  —  a  view 
which  is  supported  by  the  Federalist  itself.6  The  power  in  the 
States  was  derived  in  a  somewhat  modified  form  from  thd  Colonial 
systems  and  from  the  institutions  of  the  mother  country ;  while 
in  England  the  power  was  a  remnant  of  the  once  important  legis- 
lative power  of  the  kings.7 

Thus  it  appears  as  a  matter  of  historical  development  as  well 
as  of  theory  that  the  veto  is  a  legislative  power.  It  therefore  seems 
a  reasonable  explanation  of  the  declaration  that  "all  legislative 
power  is  vested  in  Congress/'  to  say  that  the  general  statement 
is  limited  by  the  particular  power  given  to  the  President  in  a  later 
part  of  the  same  instrument. 

1  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States,  112. 

2  The  American  Commonwealth  (Am.  edition),  I,  52. 
8  Ibid.,  I,  220. 

4  Cooley  also  calls  the  veto  a  legislative  power.    Principles  of  Constitutional  Law,  50. 

5  Ante,  §§  8,  10. 

6  The  Federalist  (Dawson's  ed.),  No.  LXVIII. 

7  Ante,  §  5. 


§§ioo,ioi.]  Legislative  Power.     Pocket   Veto.  113 

§  IOI.  Constitutionality  of  pocket  vetoes.  The  legal  ten  days. 
—  The  Constitution  provides  that  no  bill  shall  become  a  law  which 
is  presented  to  the  President  within  ten  days  of  the  end  of  a  ses- 
sion of  Congress,  unless  it  be  signed  and  returned  to  Congress 
before  adjournment.  The  provision  is  plain,  and  it  is  surprising 
that  the  constitutionality  of  these  "pocket  vetoes"  has  ever  been 
questioned.  In  1833,  however,  Henry  Clay  assailed  President 
Jackson's  pocket  veto  of  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  public  land,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unconstitu- 
tional.1 Clay  maintained  that  the  constitutional  provision  only 
applied  to  bills  presented  to  the  President  within  ten  days  of  the 
adjournment  of  the  first  or  of  an  extra  session  of  Congress.  In 
other  words,  Clay  held  that  the  President  might  withhold  his  sig- 
nature where  the  day  of  the  adjournment  was  fixed  by  simple  joint 
resolution,  but  not  otherwise.  This  reasoning  is  .wholly  unsound. 
It  is  unsupported  by  the  Constitution,  and  too  comprehensive  as 
a  matter  of  principle ;  for  if  the  rule  which  Clay  contended  for 
should  be  adopted  it  would  destroy  the  veto  power ;  Congress 
could  prevent  the  President  from  vetoing  a  bill  by  presenting  it 
to  him  so  late  in  the  final  session  that  he  could  not  veto  it  and 
still  send  his  message  to  Congress  before  adjournment.  In  fact, 
the  bill  concerning  which  Clay  complained  passed  the  House  but 
two  days  before  the  expiration  of  that  session.  No  case,  therefore, 
could  better  illustrate  the  weakness  of  Clay's  argument,  or  bring 
out  more  clearly  the  great  usefulness  of  the  pocket  veto.  How 
freeJ^Mjie-peeket  veto  has  been  employed  may  be  seen  from  an 
examination  of  the  statistics.  Many  Presidents  have  left  bills  to 
perish  for  lack  of  their  signature,  including  Presidents  who  had 
vetoed  no  bills  directly.2 

Another  very  interesting  question  relative  to  pocket  vetoes  is 
that  of  the  length  of  time  during  which  an  act  may  be  held  by  the 
President  unsigned  before  it  becomes  law.  In  the  appendix  will 
be  found  numerous  cases  in  which  a  veto  message  was  returned 
from  eleven  to  twenty-four  days  after  the  last  action  of  either 
House.  The  Constitution  distinctly  provides,  "if  any  bill  shall 
not  be  returned  by  the  President  within  ten  days  (Sundays  ex- 
cepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall 
become  a  law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it."  The  explana- 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  17;   Debates  of  Congress,  Vol.  X,  Part  I,  14-18. 

2  Cf.  Appendix  D.     For  State  practice,  see  Appendix  E,  Nos.  22-26. 


114  Veto  Power:  —  Procedure.  [Ch.  v. 

tion  of  the  discrepancy  is  simple.  In  the  first  place,  Sundays  are 
not  considered  a  legal  part  of  the  ten  days,  so  that  the  twelfth  day 
after  submission  to  the  President  may  legally  be  the  tenth.  In 
the  second  place,  the  day  of  reception  is  not  included.1  In  the 
third  place,  the  bill  is  frequently  not  presented  to  the  President 
until  some  days  after  passing,  through  the  final  stages  of  legisla- 
tion. It  may  therefore  be  set  down  as  certain  that  all  bills  which 
pass  the  second  House  in  which  they  are  considered  as  late  as  Feb- 
ruary 20  in  the  odd  years  will  fail  without  a  veto,  unless  signed  by 
the  President ;  and  bills  passed  between  the  i8th  and  2Oth  may  fail. 
§  I O2.  May  a  bill  be  vetoed  without  stating  reasons?  —  All  of 
the  presidential  vetoes  have  been  accompanied  by  the  reasons  for 
the  refusal  to  sign.  Indeed  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  other  plan 
could  be  followed,  since  the  Constitution  requires  that  if  the  Presi- 
dent fails  to  approve  a  bill  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  objections, 
to  that  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated.2  Furthermore,  it 
js  maintained  in  a  pamphlet  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Benton,  Jr.,3  that  the 
objections  assigned  must  be  objections  to  the  intrinsic  merits  of 
the  bill.  He  quotes  at  length  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Federal 
Convention,  from  the  Federalist,  and  from  the  writings  of  Madison 
and  Hamilton,  to  show  that  the  President's  authority  was  similar 
to  that  of  the  Council  of  Revision  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and 
that  this  Council  had  power  to  state  objections  only  to  the  intrinsic 
merits  of  the  bills  brought  before  it.  This  restriction  would 
narrow  the  plain  wording  of  the  Constitution  by  an  appeal  to  the 
practice  of  a  body  unknown  to  the  Constitution,  and  equally  un- 
known to  English  parliamentary  practice.  The  Constitution  sets 
no  limit  upon  the  nature  of  the  objections  stated  by  the  President, 
nor  is  it  generally  assumed  that  there  are  any  limits.4  If  there 
be  none,  the  President  has  a  constitutional  right  to  veto  a  bill 
simply  because  undue  influence  had  been  used  in  securing  its 
passage,  or  for  any  other  reason  that  seems  good  to  him,  even 
though  his  objections  may  have  no  reference  to  the  contents  of 
the  measure. 


1  Story,  Commentaries.  (Cooley's  ed.)  §  891,  notes.    For  States,  see  Appendix  E, 
Nos.  27-36. 

2  Ante,  §  II.     In  Georgia  no  veto  message  is  required.     Appendix  E,  No.  5. 
8  Benton,  The  Veto  Power  in  the  United  States,  35. 

4  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  Law,  113,  note;    Cooley,  Principles  of  Constitutional 
Law,  50. 


§§  IOI-I03-]          Reasons.     Signattire  after  Adjournment.  115 

§  103.  May  a  bill  be  signed  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress  ? 
—  There  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  to  prevent  the  President 
from  signing  a  bill  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress.  The  only 
provision  is  in  regard  to  bills  which  the  President  leaves  unsigned; 
these  cannot  become  law  if  Congress,  by  its  adjournment,  cuts 
short  the  ten  days  allowed  the  executive  for  the  consideration  of 
bills.  Nor  is  there  any  consideration  of  parliamentary  law  which 
demands  that  Congress  should  be  in  session  when  a  bill  is  signed. 
Congressional  jurisdiction  over  a  bill  ceases  when  it  is  sent  to  the 
President  for  his  signature,  and  there  is  no  legal  method  of  recover- 
ing possession  of  the  subject  other  than  by  a  subsequent  act  of  repeal 
passed  under  the  usual  forms.  The  act  is  not  even  returned  to  Con- 
gress, but  is  deposited  by  the  President  in  the  State  Department.1 

The  interests  of  good  government  seem  to  demand  that  the 
President  should  have  the  power  to  distribute  over  the  succeeding 
ten  days  the  immense  responsibility  of  signing  the  bills  with  which 
he  is  inundated  during  the  last  hours  of  Congress.  At  present  he 
must  either  sign  or  "pocket  veto"  a  multitude  of  bills  with  scarce 
a  glance  at  them  ;  and  to  refuse  his  signature  when  detailed  ex- 
amination is  impossible  means  to  cut  off  essential  appropriations, 
or  to  defeat  measures  of  great  public  importance.  Should  the 
President  be  given  the  additional  time,  his  functions  would  be 
performed  more  carefully,  and  Congress  would  perhaps  hesitate  to 
pour  upon  him  such  a  mass  of  crude  legislation. 

In  one  important  instance  the  right  of  a  President  to  sign  a  bill 
after  the  adjournment  of  Congress  has  been  distinctly  recognized. 
March  3,  1863,  Congress  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  collection 
of  abandoned  property,  and  the  prevention  of  frauds  in  insurrec- 
tionary districts  of  the  United  States.2  March  12,  1863,  President 
Lincoln  signed  the  bill.  In  1883,  in  a  case  in  the  Court  of  Claims,3 
the  validity  of  the  act  was  questioned,  but  the  Court  said  that 
the  Supreme  Court  had  passed  on  cases  under  this  act  as  if  it  had 
been  valid  law,  and  that  Congress  had  recognized  the  validity  of 
the  act  by  amending  it  July  4,  1864,  and  speaking  of  it  as  the  act 
of  March  12,  1863.  The  particular  case  under  consideration  was, 
however,  decided  on  another  point,  without  a  judicial  determina- 
tion of  the  validity  of  the  act. 

1  Revised  Statutes,  §  204. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  Part  II,  37  Cong.,  3  sess.,  1543. 

3  1 8  Court  of  Claims,  700. 


n6  Veto  Power:  —  Procedure.  [Ch.  v. 

In  at  least  three  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  New  York,  Georgia, 
and  Illinois,  amendments  to  the  State  Constitution  have  been 
passed  authorizing  the  governor  to  sign  bills  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  legislature ;  but  in  all  three  States  it  had  previously 
been  held  by  the  courts  that,  under  constitutional  provisions  cop- 
ied word  for  word  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
power  of  the  governor  to  sign  bills  within  ten  days  of  the  time 
they  are  presented  to  him  does  not  cease  with  the  adjournment  of 
the  legislature.1  The  Illinois  case  is,  perhaps,  the  most  important, 
because  it  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
Chief  Justice  Waite  in  delivering  the  opinion  said  :  "  The  question 
to  consider  is  whether  a  bill  passed  by  both  Houses  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  presented  to  the  governor  before  the  Legislature  ad- 
journs, becomes  a  law  when  signed  by  the  governor  after  the 
session  of  the  Legislature  has  terminated  by  adjournment,  but 
signed  within  ten  days  of  the  time  it  is  presented  to  him.  We  see 
nothing  in  the  Constitution  of  Illinois,  express  or  implied,  to  for- 
bid it,  and  in  our  judgment  from  every  view  of  the  case  we  think 
he  can."  2 

After  these  decisions  it  seems  hardly  probable  that  the  Supreme 
Court  would  hesitate  to  declare  valid  an  act  approved  by  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States  under  similar  circumstances. 

§  104.  May  a  President  refuse  to  carry  out  an  act?  —  August 
14,  1876,  President  Grant,  in  signing  a  river  and  harbor  bill,  pro- 
tested against  certain  provisions  in  the  measure,  and  declared  it  to 
be  his  intention  not  to  carry  out  these  provisions.3  This  was  a 
novel  and  a  clearly  unconstitutional  way  of  defeating  the  will  of 
Congress.4  The  President's  purpose  could  be  justified  only  in  regard 
to  such  acts  as  merely  authorize  the  President  or  his  secretaries  to 
take  certain  action.  But  even  in  those  cases  where  the  President 
is  commanded  to  carry  out  the  legislative  will  there  seems  to  be  no 
way  in  which  he  can  be  compelled  to  obey  the  command.  He  is 
one  of  the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  government,  and  it  is  a  well- 
established  principle  that  the  President  in  his  official  capacity  is 

1  21  N.  Y.  317;  30  Barb.  304;  41  Ga.  157.  For  the  provisions  of  State  Constitutions, 
see  Appendix  E,  Nos.  37-43. 

*  103  U.  S.  423.  B  Appendix  B,  No.  7. 

4  No  President  has  so  strenuously  stood  out  against  the  policy  of  Congress  as  Andrew 
Johnson.  But  even  President  Johnson  declared  himself  constitutionally  bound  to  carry 
out  the  details  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  passed  over  his  veto. 


§§  103-106.]  Refusal  to  Carry  Out.     Protest.  117 

not  amenable  to  the  Supreme  Court,  nor  can  he  be  reached  by 
Congress  except  through  the  cumbrous  and  well-nigh  impracti- 
cable machinery  of  impeachment.  Practically  then,  the  President 
is  independent  in  his  particular  sphere  as  chief  executive  officer  of 
the  nation ;  and  if  he  refuse  to  carry  out  the  provisions  «of  a  law 
which  is  entrusted  to  him  for  enforcement,  there  is  no  method  of 
compelling  him  to  act.  Such  refusal  is,  however,  only  suspensive 
and  not  absolute,  since  the  effect  ceases  with  the  close  of  the 
President's  term  of  office. 

§  105.  The  President's  right  of  protest.  —  In  Appendix  B  will  be 
found  a  list  of  Presidential  protests  against  various  acts  and  reso- 
lutions of  Congress.  They  cover  a  long  period  of  time  and  a  great 
variety  of  subjects.  The  first  one  —  President  Jackson's  protest 
against  the  Senate  resolution  of  censure  —  is  the  longest,  and  per- 
haps the  most  important.1 

The  Senate  maintained  that  for  the  President  to  send  to  the 
Senate  a  protest  against  any  of  its  acts,2  was  an  infringement  of 
its  rights.  The  objection  seems  well  taken.  To  be  sure,  the 
Constitution  is  silent  on  the  point,  but  each  of  the  two  Houses  of 
Congress  may  pass  resolutions  which  do  not  require  the  signature 
of  the  President,  and  are  entirely  free  from  his  veto.  In  such 
cases  a  Presidential  protest  is  both  undignified  and  unjustifiable. 
In  this  particular  instance,  the  Senate  had  put  itself  in  the  wrong 
by  an  equally  unwarranted  criticism  of  the  President's  action. 

A  somewhat  different  and  a  larger  question  is  whether  the 
President  may  constitutionally  protest  against  joint  resolutions 
and  bills  of  Congress,  without  a  formal  veto.  The  Constitution 
does  not  in  terms  give  or  withhold  such  a  right,  but  it  does  sub- 
ject joint  resolutions  and  bills  alike  to  the  veto.  The  veto  power, 
by  reasonable  implication,  includes  the  lesser  power  of  objecting 
while  signing.  It  may,  therefore,  be  laid  down  as  a  principle,  that 
a  protest  is  constitutional  wherever  a  veto  would  be  constitutional. 

§  1 06.  la  the  signature  of  'the  President  essential  to  constitu- 
tional amendments  ?  —  When  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution  was  presented  to  the  President  after  its  passage  by 
Congress,  he  signed  it  and  notified  Congress  to  that  effect.3  The 
Senate  immediately  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that  the  Presi- 

1  Appendix  B,  No.  I. 

2  Debates  of  Congress,  XII,  363. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  38  Cong.,  2  sess.,  588. 


n8  Veto  Power:  —  Procedure.  [Ch.  v. 

dent's  signature  to  the  amendment  was  unnecessary.  In  this  the 
Senate  was  undoubtedly  correct.  In  the  first  place,  the  President's 
power  to  approve  a  bill  seems  bestowed  rather  as  incident  of  his 
power  to  veto ;  when  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  successfully  to 
veto  a  measure,  the  necessity  for  his  signature  no  longer  exists.  A 
resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution  must  already  have  received  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  each  branch  of  the  Legislature.  Such  a  resolu- 
tion is  therefore  beyond  the  reach  of  the  veto  and  consequently 
beyond  the  necessity  for  Presidential  approval. 

About  thirteen  hundred  amendments  to  the  Constitution  have 
been  introduced  into  Congress  since  ifSq.1  Of  these  but  nineteen 
have  received  the  approval  of  both  Houses  of  Congress.  The  prac- 
tice of  the  government  has  been  almost  uniformly  that  suggested 
by  the  Senate.  President  Buchanan  did  indeed  sign  the  Corwin 
Amendment  in  1861  ;2  this,  however,  is  the  only  case  out  of  the 
number,  except  that  already  mentioned,  in  which  a  presidential 
signature  has  been  affixed. 

§  107.  The  action  of  Congress.  —  Should  a  bill  be  approved, 
or  should  Congress  have  adjourned  before  the  expiration  of  the  ten 
days,  no  further  action  of  Congress  upon  that  bill  is  possible.  In 
case  of  an  ordinary  veto,  however,  the  revisionary  power  of  Con- 
gress at  once  comes  into  effect,  and  it  is  the  questions  arising  out 
of  this  second  consideration  of  vetoed  bills  to  which  the  remainder 
of  this  chapter  will  be  devoted.3 

Vetoes  are  transmitted  to  that  House  of  Congress  in  which 
originated  the  bill  which  has  failed  of  executive  approval ;  and 
are  carried  to  that  House  by  the  President's  private  secretary. 

§  1 08.  Has  the  Executive  a  right  to  recall  a  veto?  —  August  15, 
1876,  President  Grant  vetoed  a  bill  providing  for  the  sale  of  certain 
Indian  lands.4  The  veto  was  sent  to  the  Senate,  but  before  that 
body  had  acted  upon  it,  a  message  was  received  from  the  President 
saying  that  his  veto  of  the  bill  was  premature,  and  requesting  that 
the  bill  be  returned  to  him  in  order  that  he  might  sign  it.  An 
interesting  discussion  immediately  arose  as  to  the  power  of  the 
President  to  recall  a  veto  message  which  had  been  received  by 


1  Stated  by  Mr.  H.  V.  Ames  from  his  researches  in  the  Journals  of  Congress. 

2  Nicolay  and  Hay  in  the  Century,  New  Series,  xiii,  73. 

3  For  action  of  State  legislatures,  see  Appendix  E,  Nos.  I  i-i  7. 

4  Appendix  A,  No.  108. 


§§  106-109.]  Recall.     Reconsideration.  119 

Congress.1  It  was  generally  held  that  the  President  had  no  such 
power,  and  that  the  only  effect,  and  in  fact  the  intended  effect,  of 
the  President's  second  message  was  to  destroy  the  persuasive  force 
of  the  first  message.  The  bill  was  accordingly  passed  over  the 
veto  in  both  Houses  by  large  majorities. 

The  question  seems  to  have  been  decided  correctly ;  for  surely 
the  President  could  have  no  more  right  to  recall  a  veto  message 
which  had  been  delivered  to  Congress,  than  a  branch  of  that  body 
would  have  to  reconsider  a  vote  on  the  passage  of  a  bill  after  pres- 
entation to  the  President.  Moreover,  if  a  President  could  recall  a 
veto,  he  would  inevitably  be  subjected  to  a  very  heavy  pressure, 
from  which  he  is  now  relieved  by  the  fact  that  vetoes  are  often 
sent  in  before  persons  interested  in  the  bill  have  time  to  remon- 
strate. 

The  President  was  evidently  satisfied  with  the  result  of  his  mes- 
sage, for  on  January  12,  1877,  he  requested  that  a  bill  vetoed  on 
August  15,  1876,  be  returned  in  order  that  he  might  sign  it.2  It 
is  not  possible  to  suppose  in  this  case  that  the  message  was  any- 
thing more  than  a  request  to  Congress  to  pass  the  bill  over  the 
veto.  For  reasons  not  evident  upon  the  face  of  the  matter,  the  bill 
was  not  passed  over  the  veto,  or  even  reconsidered. 

The  action  on  the  part  of  Congress  in  the  second  case  was 
commendable,  since  the  dangers  just  referred  to  as  attendant  upon 
a  power  in  the  executive  to  recall  veto  messages  would  not  be  obvi- 
ated under  a  procedure  whereby  the  President  could  practically 
nullify  his  veto  by  a  message  to  Congress. 

§  109.  What  is  a  two-thirds  majority? — The  veto  message 
once  before  the  House,  the  next  question  is,  what  constitutes  the 
constitutional  two-thirds  majority  necessary  to  enact  a  bill  over 
the  veto  ?  Upon  this  question  the  proceedings  of  the  Federal 
Convention  throw  a  great  deal  of  light.  In  all  the  early  stages 
of  the  discussion,  it  was  provided  that  a  bill  must  receive  a  vote 
of  "  two-thirds  of  each  branch  of  the  national  legislature."  3  This 
phrase  could  only  mean  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  in  each 
branch  of  Congress.  When  the  resolution  was  taken  up  by  the 

1  Congressional  Record,  44  Cong.,  I  sess.,  5664.     The  Confederate  Congress  occa- 
sionally recalled  a  bill  after  sending  it  to  President  Davis;   some  confusion  was  caused, 
but  there  was  no  objection. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  109. 

8  Elliot,  Debates  V,  349,  376  ;   ante,  §  10. 


I2O  Veto  Power:  —  Procedure.  [Ch.  v. 

Committee  of  Detail  the  wording  was  changed,  so  that  a  bill  to 
become  a  law  in  spite  of  the  veto  must  be  passed  by  two-thirds  of 
each  House.1  This  change  in  the  wording  is  significant,  for  in  the 
Constitution  the  word  house  is  in  such  connection  used  as  synony- 
mous with  quorum.2 

Nevertheless,  the  question  continued  occasionally  to  be  debated 
until  1856.  On  May  19  of  that  year  President  Pierce  vetoed  an 
internal  improvement  bill.3  When  the  veto  came  up  for  recon- 
sideration in  the  Senate,  the  thirty-one  votes  cast  in  favor  of  pass- 
ing the  bill,  over  the  President's  objections,  made  two-thirds  of  the 
members  present,  but  not  two-thirds  of  the  total  number  of  Sena- 
tors. The  President  of  the  Senate,  however,  declared  the  bill 
passed.  An  appeal  from  the  decision  was  not  sustained  by  the 
Senate.4  This  decision  has  ever  since  been  accepted  as  a  prece- 
dent.5 

§  IIO.  Has  the  Speaker  a  right  to  vote  on  reconsideration?  — 
March  3,  1817,  the  House  of  Representatives  considered  President 
Madison's  veto  of  the  " bonus  bill/'6  When  the  vote  was  taken, 
the  Speaker,  Henry  Clay,  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  to  vote 
on  the  ground  that  the  occasion  "  differed  from  every  other  ques- 
tion before  the  House."7  At  the  present  time  it  is  the  custom 
for  the  Speaker  to  vote  in  all  cases  where  the  Constitution  requires 
a  two-thirds  vote.  The  rules  of  the  House  are,  however,  silent 
on  the  point,  merely  providing  that  the  Speaker  must  vote  whenever 
his  vote  would  be  decisive,  or  when  the  vote  is  to  be  by  ballot.8 
There  appears  to  be  nothing  in  the  position  of  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  which  deprives  him  of  a  vote  upon 
such  questions  ;  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  rule  of  the  House 
could  withdraw  the  right. 

§  1 1 1.  Second  reconsideration  of  a  veto.  —  The  question  whether 
a  house  after  taking  a  vote  upon  a  vetoed  bill  and  failing  to  pass  it 
over  a  veto,  may  a  second  time  bring  it  to  a  vote,  is  not  one  touched 
upon  directly  by  the  Constitution  ;  it  is  a  question  of  which  the 
solution  has  been  left  wholly  to  the  discretion  of  Congress. 

1  Elliot,  Debates,  V,  378,  431,  536. 

2  Ibid.,  V,  406,  407;    cf.  Constitution,  Art.  I,  Sec.  5. 

8  Appendix  A,  No.  38.  *  Senate  Journal,  34  Cong.,  I  and  2  sess.,  419. 

5  Rules  of  House  of  Representatives,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  473. 

6  Appendix  A,  No.  8.  7  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  2  sess.,  1062. 
8  Rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  49  Cong.,  2  sess.,  236. 


§§io9-iu.]         Speakers    Vote.     Second  Reconsideration.  121 

At  the  close  of  President  Pierce's  administration  five  bills  were 
passed  over  the  veto ;  and  in  the  case  of  each  of  the  last  two  the 
first  vote  in  the  Senate  on  reconsideration  was  not  sufficient  to 
pass  the  bill ;  afterwards  the  vote  was  reconsidered  and  the  neces- 
sary two-thirds  majority  obtained.1  In  the  second  case,  the  Senate 
had  not  only  failed  to  pass  the  bill,  but  had  by  message  informed 
the  House  of  that  fact ;  and  before  they  reconsidered  the  vote  they 
requested  the  return  of  the  message.  The  House  complied,  and 
the  vote  was  duly  reconsidered.  The  action  of  the  Senate  met 
with  much  objection.  Senator  Bayard  held  that  by  "reconsidera- 
tion "  in  the  case  of  a  veto  the  Constitution  meant  a  single  vote, 
and  that  since  the  Senate  had  voted  upon  the  bill  and  failed  to 
pass  it,  it  was  dead,  and  could  not  again  be  considered.2  Senator 
Stewart  on  the  other  hand  claimed  that  by  "reconsider"  the 
Constitution  meant  that  Congress  could  open  the  whole  question 
and  treat  it  just  as  in  the  original  discussion,  except  that  a  two- 
thirds  vote  was  necessary  to  carry  it.3  Similar  ground  was  taken 
by  Senator  Seward,  who  maintained  that  until  a  bill  had  gone 
beyond  the  control  of  the  Senate  it  could  be  reconsidered  indefi- 
nitely.4 This  was  the  view  also  of  'the  President  of  the  Senate, 
who  ruled  that  the  case  came  under  the  general  practice  of  the 
Senate,  by  which  every  question  that  has  been  decided  may  be 
reconsidered.  An  appeal  was  taken,  but  the  ruling  was  sustained 
by  the  decisive  vote  of  32  to  Q.5 

The  House  of  Representatives  settled  the  question  at  a  much 
earlier  date  and  in  exactly  the  opposite  way.  When  Tyler's  veto 
of  June  u,  1844,  came  up  in  the  House,  the  bill  was  reconsidered 
and  lost.6  Later  on  in  the  same  session,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
reconsider  this  vote,  but  the  Speaker  ruled  that  this  could  not  be 
done,  and  the  ruling  was  sustained  by  the  House  by  a  vote  of  97 
to  S5.7 

In  both  these  cases  the  objection  made  was  parliamentary  rather 
than  constitutional :  it  evidently  rests  within  the  discretion  of  each 
House  either  to  permit  or  to  forbid  the  second  reconsideration  for 
itself ;  but  neither  House  can  impose  its  principle  upon  the  other. 

1  Appendix  A,  Nos.  41,  42. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  34  Cong.,  I  sess.,  2205. 
8  Ibid.  4  Ibid.,  2206. 

6  Congressional  Globe,  34  Cong.,  I  sess.,  2206. 

6  Appendix  A,  No.  29. 

7  Congressional  Globe,  28  Cong.,  I  sess.,  675. 


122  Veto  Power:  —  Procedure.  [Ch.  v. 

§    112.    Failure  to  enter  the  veto  message  in  the  journal. — The 

Constitution  strictly  provides  that  the  veto  message  shall  be  en- 
tered at  large  upon  the  Journal  of  the  House  in  which  it  origi- 
nated. In  one  instance  this  duty  apparently  has  been  omitted.1 
President  Hayes'  veto  of  June  15,  i88o,2  does  not  appear  in  the 
Senate  Journals.  The  receipt  of  the  message  is  recorded  for  the 
last  day  of  the  session,  but  a  careful  search  has  failed  to  discover 
the  message  itself.  The  failure  in  this  case  seems  due  to  the  neg- 
ligence of  one  of  the  Houses.  The  omission  of  the  constitutional 
requirement,  however,  cannot  vitiate  the  veto.  The  action  of  the 
President  was  complete,  and  was  acknowledged  by  the  Senate. 

On  the  other  hand,  although  the  provision  for  the  entry  of  the 
President's  objections  is  plainly  intended  to  preserve  a  permanent 
record,  yet,  in  this,  as  in  other  directory  parts  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, there  is  no  process  by  which  Congress  can  be  compelled  to 
perform  its  duty. 

§  113.  Frequent  neglect  of  reconsideration.  —  The  same  princi- 
ple applies  to  the  last  constitutional  point  which  remains  to  be 
noted.  During  the  early  history  of  the  government,  Congress 
was  very  particular  to  comply  with  the  constitutional  provision 
requiring  that  a  bill  should  be  reconsidered  after  its  veto.  Indeed 
it  was  not  until  President  Lincoln's  administration  that  the  first 
failure  occurred.3  From  that  time  on,  however,  the  constitutional 
duty  of  Congress  in  this  particular  has  been  less  and  less  observed, 
and  in  President  Cleveland's  administration,  as  well  as  in  Presi- 
dent Grant's,  it  was  the  exception,  and  not  the  rule,  to  reconsider 
a  vetoed  bill.  The  complete  change  in  procedure  in  these  two 
administrations  may  be  accounted  for  in  part  by  the  great  number 
of  vetoes  by  these  two  Presidents. 

A  wider  reason,  perhaps  including  that  just  stated,  is  the  great 
pressure  of  business  upon  Congress.  It  is  difficult  to  secure  time 
for  the  reconsideration  of  a  bill  unless  it  can  probably  command  a 
two-thirds  majority  in  both  Houses.  Even  where  the  success  of 
a  bill  is  certain,  it  is  often  impossible  to  secure  the  attention  of 
Congress. 

1  President  Jackson,  in  1837,  signed  a  veto  message  dated  "March  3,  11.45  p-M-" 
Congress  was  to  expire  in  a  few  minutes  and  instead  of  sending  the  message  to  the  Sen- 
ate for  entry  in  the  Journals,  he  deposited  it  in  the  Department  of  State.     Appendix  A, 
No.  21.     For  State  practice,  see  Appendix  E,  Nos.  18-21. 

2  Appendix  A,  No.  127.  »  Ibid.,  No.  50. 


§§  H2-II4.]         Entry.     Neglect  to  Consider.     Discussion.  123 

§  114.  Comparative  unimportance  of  constitutional  details.  — 
From  the  discussion  in  this  chapter  it  is  apparent  that,  although 
the  veto  power  has  been  many  times  employed  to  uphold  constitu- 
tional principles,  few  and  unimportant  questions  have  arisen  as  to 
its  nature  and  the  method  of  its  operation.  For  this  apparent  par- 
adox two  reasons  may  be  assigned.  In  the  first  place,  the  power 
is  very  accurately  and  carefully  defined  by  the  Constitution,  thus 
leaving  little  room  for  controversy.  A  more  important  reason, 
however,  is  that  the  veto  is  not  a  substantive  power,  but,  in  the 
legal  sense,  an  adjective  power,  a  modifying  influence,  which 
changes  with  every  change  in  administration. 

The  effect  of  the  veto  depends  upon  the  substantive  power  to 
which  it  may  for  the  time  be  linked,  and  of  which  the  exercise  may 
be  forwarded  or  prevented  by  the  exercise  of  this  form  of  presiden- 
tial discretion.  Attacks  upon  the  veto  have  therefore  occurred 
rather  as  attacks  upon  the  substantive  powers  accompanying  it. 
It  is  only  these  latter  powers,  as  for  example  the  power  to  make 
internal  improvements,  which  present  tangible  and  continuing 
principles  which  can  be  attacked  or  defended  for  themselves.  For 
these  reasons,  the  veto  power  has  never  aroused  that  determined 
hostility  to  its  existence  or  mode  of  operation  which  has  generally 
preceded  and  caused  modifications  of  the  other  powers  of  govern- 
ment. 

For  the  very  reason  that  the  veto  power  is  used  as  a  means  to  an 
end,  the  temporary  contentions  over  the  manner  of  its  use  have 
been  more  frequent  and  more  violent ;  and,  in  the  next  chapter, 
we  shall  pass  to  the  discussion  of  the  veto  as  a  political  engine. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE    VETO  POWER. 

§  115.   Reasons  for  chronological  treatment. 
>  §  1 1 6.    Statistics  of  vetoes. 
§  117.    Personal  element  in  the  veto. 

*  §  1 1 8.    Presidents  who  vetoed  no  bills. 
§  1 1 9.    Presidents  who  vetoed  few  bills. 
.   §  1 20.    Presidents  who  vetoed  many  bills. 
s§  121.    Reasons  expressed  for  vetoes. 

§  122.   The  constitution  and  expediency. 

§  123.   Cause  of  the  increasing  use  of  expediency  as  a  reason  for  vetoes. 
§  124.   Effect  of  the  veto  on  parties. 
§  125.   Effect  of  the  veto  on  legislation. 

§  126.   Prevention  of  unwise  measures. 
§  127.    Prevention  of  unwise  lines  of  policy. 
§  128.   Indirect  influence  of  the  veto  on  legislation. 
§  129.   Vetoes  which  have  failed  of  their  object. 
§  130.    Popular  objections  to  the  veto. 


§  131.    Proposed  constitutional  amendments.  «. 

§  132.  Attempts  to  destroy  the  power.  "J  i  O\  a  +  U 
§  133.  Attempts  to  diminish  the  power.  ^7  &*  L/Y<4L- 
§  134.  Attempts  to  enlarge  the  power.  3 

§  135.   The  veto  power  in  1789  and  in  1889. 

§  115.  Reasons  for  chronological  treatment.  —  The  history  of  the 
veto  power  could  be  obviously  incomplete  without  some  general 
view  of  its  political  growth  and  tendencies.  The  main  body  of 
the  work  has  been  devoted  to  the  study  in  its  details  of  the  effect 
of  the  veto  on  the  form,  distribution,  and  exercise  of  the  various 
powers  of  the  government.  In  thus  grouping  the  vetoes  about 
great  lines  of  legislation,  there  is  danger  of  losing  sight  of  the 
veto  as  a  political  power. 

§  1 1 6.  Statistics  of  vetoes. — A  glance  at  Appendix  A  will 
suggest  several  generalizations  as  to  the  number  of  vetoes  and 
their  classification  according  to  their  general  character  and  recap- 
ture by  Congress. 

Of  the  four  hundred  and  thirty-three  vetoes  enumerated,  it  is 
.important  to  observe  that  only  twenty-nine  bear  the  double  star, 


§§  ii5,  1  1  6.  Statistics  of  Vetoes.  125 


thnt  the^bills  eventually  passed  over  thejEelo.1  Favor- 
able as  this  showing  is  to  the  power  of  the  veto,  it  is  an  under- 
estimate ;  fifteen  of  the  bills,  or  more  than  half,  were  passed  over 
the  veto  in  the  administration  of  President  Johnson,  when  the 
relations  between  the  executive  and  Congress  were  so  abnormal 
that  no  important  inference  can  be  drawn  from  them  as  to  the 
effectiveness  of  the  veto.  It  is  often  stated  that  Johnson  was 
the  first  President  whose  veto  was  overridden.  The  statement  is 
incorrect  ;  one  bill  was  passed  over  the  veto  in  President  Tyler's 
administration  and  five  in  President  Pierce's.2 

In  eleven  cases  bills  were  passed  over  the  veto  in  one  of  the 
Houses  of  Congress,  but  were  either  not  reconsidered  or  failed 
upon  reconsideration  in  the  other  House.3  Seven  of  these 
instances  occurred  in  the  administration  of  President  Cleveland. 
And  in  each  of  the  seven  cases  the  House  which  passed  the  bill 
over  the  veto  was  the  Senate.  This  fact  is  partly  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  the  President  was  not  a  member  of  the  party  hav- 
ing a  majority  in  the  Senate.  But  as  the  bills  thus  passed  were, 
with  two  exceptions,  for  the  erection  of  public  buildings,  party 
considerations  had  probably  little  weight.4 

Although  so  few  bills  have  been  passed  over  the  veto  even  by 
a  single  House,  it  was  the  universal  custom  down  to  President 
Lincoln's  administration  to  take  a  formal  vote  on  the  question  of 
reconsideration  ;  a  proceeding  which,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
government,  was  little  more  than  a  form.  Three  hundred  and 
eighty-four  bills  have  failed  of  executive  approval  since  1861, 
and  of  these  bills  only  sixty-three  were  reconsidered.  This  would 
indicate  that  reconsideration  is  no  longer  insisted  upon  for  form's 
sake,  and  is  only  resorted  to  when  it  is  expected  that  the  bill  can 
be  passed  over  the  veto  by  at  least  one  of  the  two  Houses.5 

It  remains  to  consider  the  number  .of  "pocket  vetoes";  the 
failures  to  sign  bills  for  which  a  President  has  sent  an  official 
statement  of  reasons  at  a  later  session  of  Congress.  There  have 
been  sixteen  of  them.  The  practice  began  in  President  Madison's 

1  Appendix  A,  Nos.  30,  38,  39,  40,  41,  42,  54,  57,  59,  61,  62,  63,  64,  65,  66,  67,  68, 
69,  7°»  71.  73.  83,  98,  103,  108,  117,  131,  221,  234. 

2  By  the  Confederate  Congress  the  veto  of  President  Davis  was  once  overridden. 
Appendix  C,  No.  34;   cf.  Nos.  9,  II. 

8  Appendix  A,  Nos.  74,  78,  in,  132,  134,  156,  157,  273,  277,  407,  429. 
4  Several  of  the  Confederate  vetoes  met  with  like  treatment.     Appendix  C,  Nos.  23, 
33>  35»38.  *  Ante,  §  113. 


126  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

administration,  and  continued  down  to  1865.  Since  President 
Lincoln's  administration  no  "pocket  vetoes"  have  occurred.  This 
does  not  mean  that  all  the  bills  presented  have  been  signed  within 
ten  days  of  the  close  of  the  sessions  of  Congress.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  true  that  more  bills  than  ever  fail  in  this  way.  What 
the  apparent  disuse  of  the  pocket  veto  indicates  is  that  a  failure 
to  sign  has  ceased  to  be  a  matter  of  sufficient  importance  to 
attract  the  attention  of  Congress.1 

§  II/.  Personal  element  in  the  veto.  —  The  question  of  the 
distribution  of  vetoes  among  the  various  Presidents  is  quite  as 
important  as  their  total  number,  and  it  is  noticeable  that  many 
circumstances  apart  from  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  legislation 
presented  to  them  have  influenced  the  Presidents  in  their  deter- 
mination either  to  use  or  not  to  use  the  veto.  There  are  personal 
elements,  depending  upon  the  individual  characteristics  of  the 
various  Presidents  and  their  relations  with  the  different  Congresses, 
which  have  had  as  much  to  do  with  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power 
as  has  the  character  of  the  proposed  legislation. 

§  1 1 8.  Presidents  who  vetoed  no  bills. — Seven  Presidents  have 
omitted  to  exercise  the  veto  power.2  In  the  cases  of  the  first 
four  the  failure  was  due  in  part  no  doubt  to  the  fact  that,  during 
their  terms  of  office,  they  had  to  do  with  Congresses  which  were 
almost  continuously  in  political  agreement  with  them.  In  the  case 
of  Jefferson  the  character  of  the  man  was  an  additional  cause  for 
the  disuse  of  the  veto ;  not  only  was  he  solidly  supported  by  Con- 
gress, but  he  also  implicitly  believed  that  "the  people"  were 
always  right,  and  on  this  account  did  not  use  the  "  royal  preroga- 
tive." Even  the  bitter  personal  humiliation  of  the  repeal  of  the 
embargo  was  endured  without  a  suggestion  of  a  veto.  Van  Buren's 
peculiar  caution  must  also  have  had  much  to  do  with  his  acceptance 
of  legislation.  An  astute  politician,  heir  to  a  well-defined  policy, 

1  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  prepare  a  table  which  would  show  the  precise 
numbers  of  bills  which  failed  under  the 'ten-day  rule  for  want  of  the  President's  signa- 
ture.    The  journals  are  so  confused  that  it  has  been  impossible  to  complete  it  for  this 
work.     But  President  Grant  suffered  a  large  number  of  bills  to  fail  in  this  way ;   and 
a  large  number  became  acts  without  his  signature. 

In  the  Southern  Confederacy  there  were  no  "pocket  vetoes";  but  President  Davis 
twice  sent  notice  to  Congress  that  he  had  left  bills  unsigned,  and  had  not  time  to  state 
his  reasons.  Appendix  C,  Nos.  5,  17. 

2  John  Adams,  Jefferson,  John  Quincy  Adams,  Van  Buren,  W.  H.  Harrison,  Taylor, 
Garfield. 


§§  ii6-i2o.]  Personal  Element.  127 

and  well  supported  by  his  party,  his  conciliatory  character  was 
averse  to  the  use  of  a  weapon  so  keen  as  the  veto. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  character  of  W.  H.  Harrison,  Taylor, 
or  Garfield  to  suggest  a  like  restraint ;  but  the  death  of  each  of 
these  Presidents  shortly  after  entering  upon  the  duties  of  office 
took  away  the  opportunity.  It  is  almost  certain  that  President 
Taylor  would  have  vetoed  the  compromise  of  1850  had  he  lived.1 

§  119.  Presidents  who  vetoed  few  bills. — Turning  now  to 
those  Presidents  who  did  veto  bills,  we  distinguish  two  classes. 
In  the  first  we  find  those  Presidents  who  vetoed  few  bills  and 
whose  exercise  of  the  power  seems  incidental  rather  than  the 
result  of  any  fixed  policy.  In  the  second  we  find  those  who  have 
exercised  the  veto  freely  and  with  some  definite  policy  in  view. 
Nine  Presidents  belong  in  the  first  group.2 

The  personal  element  had  practically  no  influence  in  the  vetoes 
of  Washington,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  but  when  we  come  to  Tyler 
we  find  a  man  who  was  largely  influenced  by  private  motives.3 
Confidence  in  his  own  judgment,  resentment  at  the  dictation  of  the 
Whigs,  and  the  hope  of  a  renomination  controlled  him  in  his  use 
of  the  veto.  The  bitter  hostility  of  Congress  did  much  to  irritate 
him.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  small  wonder  that  the  merits 
of  the  various  bills  found  little  place  in  the  real  reasons  for  Tyler's 
vetoes  ;  and  that  his  exercise  of  the  power  was  scarcely  more  than 
an  incident  in  his  wrangle  with  Congress.  Polk,  Pierce,  Buchanan, 
and  Lincoln  always  had  majorities  of  their  own  party  in  both 
Houses,  except  for  the  defection  of  the  House,  1859-1861.  Each 
vetoed  a  few  bills  simply  because  they  disapproved  of  the  legisla- 
tion ;  they  were  apparently  unaffected  by  any  motives  of  a  personal 
nature. 

§  1 2O.  Presidents  who  vetoed  many  bills.  —  Five  Presidents  have 
each  vetoed  twelve  or  more  bills ; 4  and  in  each  instance  either  the 
personal  characteristics  of  the  President  or  his  peculiar  relations 
with  Congress  are  largely  responsible  for  the  vigorous  use  of 
the  veto. 

No  administration  was  more  thoroughly  affected  by  the  personal 
characteristics  of  its  chief  executive  than  that  of  President  Tack- 

1  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History,  III,  541. 

2  Washington,  Madison,  Monroe,  Tyler,  Polk,  Pierce,  Buchanan,  Lincoln,  Arthur. 
8  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  425,  455,  457. 

*  Jackson,  Johnson,  Grant,  Hayes,  Cleveland. 


128  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

son  ;  and  his  intense  personality  and  enjoyment  of  a  conflict  were 
r^wh^rf^  more  prominent  than  in  the  vetoes ;  they  were  imbued 
with  prejudices,  yet  were  based  upon  a  certain  rugged  persistence 
of  honest  conviction.  President  Johnson's  vetoes  were  largely 
the  result  of  his  contest  with  Congress  over  reconstruction,  — -  a 
struggle  which  his  own  foolishness  and  obstinacy  did  much  to 
bring  about. 

President  Grant  was  the  first  occupant  of  the  chair  to  make  a 
systematic  and  determined  use  of  his  share  in  legislation.  Against 
more  than  a  hundred  and  thirty  bills  he  made  the  silent  protest  of 
permitting  them  to  become  law  without  his  signature.1  Between 
one  and  two  hundred  bills  were  killed  under  the  ten-day  rule  by 
withholding  his  signature,  and  his  vetoes,  forty-three  in  number, 
are  more  numerous  than  those  of  any  other  President  except  Cleve- 
land. He  was  influenced  to  make  this  extensive  use  of  his  power 
by  a  strong  determination  to  check  the  indiscriminate  granting  of 
relief  to  persons  who  claimed  to  have  suffered  unjustly  in  the  Civil 
War.  Here  again  we  see  that  a  vigorous  use  of  the  veto  depended 
not  so  much  upon  the  character  of  the  legislation  as  upon  the 
peculiar  sense  of  duty  of  the  President. 

In  President  Hayes'  exercise  of  the  veto  power  the  personal 
element  is  almost  wholly  lacking.  He  displayed  commendable 
determination  in  vetoing  the  appropriation  bills  to  which  riders 
had  been  attached  ; 2  but  it  was  due  rather  to  a  desire  to  hand  down 
the  prerogatives  of  the  President  unimpaired  than  to  any  personal 
feeling. 

President  Cleveland  has  far  outstripped  all  his  predecessors  in 
his  use  of  the  veto.  Three  hundred  and  one  of  the  four  hundred 
and  thirty-three  vetoes,  or  more  than  two-thirds  of  all,  bear  his 
signature.  His  administration  is  too  recent,  and  the  question  is 
perhaps  too  closely  connected  with  present  politics  for  a  perfectly- 
impartial  view.  There  are,  however,  several  reasons  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  administration  which  account  in  part  for  the  sweep- 
ing use  of  the  veto  power.  In  the  first  place,  the  mass  of  legisla- 
tion thrown  upon  the  President  for  consideration  by  far  exceeded 
anything  previously  known.  Grant,  in  his  two  terms,  signed  2885 
bills  ;  Cleveland,  in  his  one  term,  was  called  upon  to  consider  nearly 
four  thousand  bills,  of  which  he  signed  3146,  and  vetoed  301.  No 

1  Appendix  D.  2  Ante,  §  35. 


§§  120-122.]         Personal  Element.     Reasons  Expressed.  129 

man  could  accept  'this  mass  of  legislation  unquestioned,  and  the 
very  number  of  bills  suggested  the  hurry  at  the  Capitol,  and  pointed 
to  crude  and  undigested  legislation.  The  number  of  private  bills, 
which  always  receive  least  attention  and  are  subject  to  least  exami- 
nation by  Congress,  had  increased  in  greater  proportion  than  legis- 
lation in  general.  As  had  been  the  case  in  Grant's  administration, 
the  nature  of  the  bills  showered  upon  the  President,  quite  as  much 
as  their  number,  called  for  numerous  vetoes.  The  precedent 
set  by  Grant  was  followed.  But  the  underlying  cause  was  in  the 
personal  qualities  of  the  President,  — his  freedom  from  pledges,  his 
rigorous  independence  of  judgment,  and  determination  to  prevent 
a  wasteful  expenditure.  The  inexpediency  of  the  measures  was 
no  greater  than  those  of  a  similar  nature  which  had  been  approved 
in  large  numbers  by  previous  Presidents ;  but  the  determination 
of  the  executive  to  stop  the  indiscriminate  granting  of  money  was 
stronger,  and  it  was  this  additional  factor  which  accounts  for  most 
of  President  Cleveland's  vetoes. 

§  121.  Reasons  expressed  for  vetoes.  —  In  the  search  for  the 
causes  of  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power,  lying  in  the  minds  of  the 
successive  Presidents,  the  primary  or  expressed  reasons  must  not 
be  omitted.  A  long  succession  of  messages  has  set  forth  a  great 
variety  of  objections  to  proposed  bills,  but  they  may  all  be  rerhireH 
to  one  of  two  heads,  —  constitutionality  and  expediency.  The 
alternative  of  the  two  classes  of  reasons  marks  the  development  of 
new  conceptions  of  the  veto  and  therefore  forms  the  subject  of  the 
succeeding  paragraphs. 

§  122.  The  Constitution  and  expediency.  —  President  Washington 
based  his  first  veto  upon  constitutional  grounds.1  This  precedent 
was  followed  closely  by  the  earlier  Presidents.  Down  through  Jack- 
spn'sadmmistration  twenty-one  bills  were  vetoed,  and  only  five  or 
six  were  based  upon  other  than  constitutional  grounds.  Some  of 
them,  as,  for  example,  Madison's  last  veto  and  Monroe's  Cumber- 
land Road  veto,2  were  not  so  much  vetoes  of  measures  as  general 
expositions  of  the  Constitution.  From  Jackson's  administration  to 
the  Civil  War  vetoes  on  grounds  of  expediency  became  more  fre- 
quent, but  they  were  still  in  a  decided  minority.  Since  the  war 
constitutional  arguments  in  a  veto  message  have  been  almost 
unknown. 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  I.  2  Ibid.,  No.  9. 


1 30  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

The  series  of  vetoes  based  on  expediency  began  almost  as  soon 
as  did  that  of  vetoes  based  on  constitutional  grounds,  for  Wash- 
ington's second  veto  was  of  this  character.1  Such  objections  were, 
however,  uncommon  down  to  the  Civil  War,  but  they  passed  un- 
questioned in  almost  all  cases.  Since  1865  the  great  increase  in 
the  number  of  these  vetoes  has  caused  members  of  Congress  to 
question  their  validity.  President  Cleveland's  last  veto  message 
was  objected  to  by  Senator  Sherman  on  this  ground.2  The  Senator 
declared  that  the  President  should  only  make  use  of  his  revisionary 
power  when  the  defence  of  the  Constitution  demanded  it.  This 
question  has  been  sufficiently  discussed  already.  It  is  a  well-set- 
tled principle  that  a  President  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  nature  of 
the  reasons  which  shall  be  assigned  for  a  veto. 

§  123.  Cause  of  the  increasing  use  of  expediency  as  a  reason  for 
vetoes.  —  For  the  change  in  the  character  of  the  objections  stated 
by  Presidents  there  must  be  a  reason.  It  is  not  that  Presidents 
have  become  wiser  or  more  dictatorial,  nor  because  the  proper 
function  of  the  veto  has  altered.  It  is  due  rather  to  the  "adjec- 
tive "  character  of  the  veto.  The  scope  of  national  legislation 
has  changed,  and  the  basis  of  the  veto  has  of  necessity  become 
altered  to  correspond.  For  the  first  seventy  years  of  national  life 
the  most  important  questions  with  which  Congress  had  to  deal 
were  constitutional.  There  were  wide  differences  of  opinion  as 
to  the  proper  settlement  of  great  fundamental  lines  of  policy,  and 
the  veto  was  frequently  brought  into  use  as  an  additional  factor  on 
one  side  or  the  other.  Objections  on  grounds  of  expediency  were 
often  made  by  Washington,  Madison,  and  almost  all  of  their  suc- 
cessors down  to  the  Civil  War,  but  the  quantity  of  legislation  was 
smaller,  and  it  was  better  digested  before  presentation  to  the  Presi- 
dent ;  therefore  vetoes  on  other  than  constitutional  grounds  were  rare. 

After  the  war  the  nature  of  the  questions  before  Congress 
changed.  The  result  of  that  struggle  was  to  leave  permanently  in 
the  hands  of  the  general  government  powers  up  to  that  time  dis- 
puted. Questions  as  to  the  administration  of  the  government  then 
became  important,  and  the  veto  accordingly  became  a  weapon  of 
expediency.  This  change  was  felt,  if  not  understood,  by  Senator 
Vest  when,  in  the  debate  on  the  veto  of  the  Direct  Tax  bill,3  he 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  2.     Many  of  the  Confederate  vetoes  are  based  on  expediency; 
Appendix  0. 

2  Congressional  Record,  50  Cong.,  2  sess.,  2612,  2613.  8  Appendix  A,  No.  433. 


§§  1 22-1 24.]  Expediency  as  a  Reason.     Parties.  131 

said,  "  It  has  come  to  this  point  in  our  country,  that  the  man  who 
attempts  to  question  anything  under  a  constitutional  grant  of 
power  is  looked  upon  as  an  effete  and  worn-out  fossil  who  lives  in 
ancient  history,  and  is  unfit  for  the  active  life  of  to-day."  *  It  is 
indeed  true  that  the  era  of  great  constitutional  debates  has  passed. 
No  Hayne  attacks  or  Webster  defends  the  great  principles  of  the 
Constitution,  and  the  character  of  the  arguments  in  veto  messages 
is  a  reflex  of  the  character  of  the  debates  which  preceded  them. 

§  124.  Effect  of  the  veto  on  parties.  —  Whatever  the  ground 
upon  which  vetoes  have  from  time  to  time  been  based,  they  have 
had  singularly  little  influence  upon  the  history  or  development  of 
parties.  In  a  government  in  which  legislative  power  is  so  developed, 
it  is  impossible  to  make  the  use  of  the  veto  a  party  principle. 
Where  the  minority  in  either  House  agrees  with  the  President, 
they  may  urge  him  to  veto  measures  passed  by  the  majority;  but 
every  presidential  election  breaks  up  existing  combinations.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  use  of  the  veto*by  a  President  has  seldom 
strengthened  his  authority  as  a  party  leader,  and  has  frequently 
weakened  his  influence  on  his  party.  Madison's  and  Monroe's 
elaborate  vetoes  were  both  swept  aside  by  their  own  parties. 
Jackson's  vetoes  were  a  very  important  element  in  the  building  up 
of  the  Democratic  party,  because  they  forced  politicians  to  side 
with  him  or  against  him ;  and  they  had  great  effect  in  fixing  the 
later  tenets  of  that  party,  especially  in  questions  of  the  bank  and 
currency.  But  Jackson  used  the  veto,  as  he  used  appointments, 
as  a  temporary  means  to  an  end :  his  Democratic  successors  could 
not  make  the  veto  venerated,  and  Polk  was  the  first  President  to 
suffer  the  mortification  of  seeing  a  veto  overruled  by  Congress. 

That  the  veto  is  in  itself  not  a  consolidating  agent  is  seen 
plainly  in  the  case  of  Tyler.  Armed  with  that  weapon  he  was  able 
to  paralyze  the  WThig  party ;  but  he  could  make  no  headway  either 
in  winning  the  Democrats  or  in  creating  a  personal  following.  He 
exasperated  and  injured  the  Whigs;  but  they  elected  their  candi- 
date in  1848.  Johnson's  experience  was  much  the  same,  except 
that  a  two-thirds  majority  stood  ready  to  overrule  him.  His 
vetoes,  therefore,  strengthened  his  enemies.  Grant  used  the  veto 
frequently  and  wisely,  but  neither  sought  nor  gained  party  advan- 
tage from  it.  It  was  much  the  same  with  Cleveland :  it  is 

1  Congressional  Record,  50  Cong.,  2  sess.,  2612. 


132  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

impossible  to  say  whether  he  strengthened  his  hold  upon  his 
party  or  the  popularity  of  his  party  in  the  country,  by  his  fearless 
use  of  the  veto.  The  veto  is  a  negative  power,  not  popular  or 
unpopular  in  itself;  and  since  a  veto  always  confronts  a  majority 
in  both  Houses,  the  presumption  is  that  its  use  is  an  opposition  to 
party. 

§  125.  Effect  of  the  veto  on  legislation.  —  Turning  from  this 
question  we  come  to  the  more  practical  question  of  the  effects  of 
the  vetoes.  Whatever  the  reasons  in  the  minds  of  Presidents, 
the  expectations  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  have  been 
realized  only  if  the  veto  has  been  so  used  as  to  favor  good  legis- 
lation. 

§  126.  Prevention  of  unwise  measures.  —  In  many  instances  the 
veto  has  been  used  to  prevent  the  passage  of  isolated  measures 
which  were  not  connected  with  any  general  line  of  policy,  but  which 
were  evidently  ill-considered  or  unwise.  In  this  category  should  be 
placed  President  Washington's  second  veto,1  and  President  Madison's 
naturalization  veto,2  and  also  two  of  Lincoln's  vetoes;3  the  bills 
checked  by  the  latter  were  unwise,  however,  simply  in  the  sense  of 
being  inefficient.  The  two  bills  for  enabling  a  New  York  mining 
company  to  get  control  of  land  in  Montana  were  for  a  fraudulent 
purpose,  and  were  wisely  vetoed  by  President  Johnson.4  President 
Grant's  refusal  to  sign  the  inflation  bill  is  a  striking  instance  of 
the  usefulness  of  the  veto.5  The  bill  was  in  no  sense  corrupt,  but 
it  was  the  result  of  a  craze  caused  by  the  panic  of  1873,  and  would 
have  done  great  mischief  to  the  business  interests  of  the  country 
if  it  had  been  allowed  to  succeed.  President  Hayes's  veto  of  the 
Chinese  bill 6  is  a  case  in  which  the  veto  was  used  to  protect  the 
diplomatic  interests  of  the  nation  from  a  heedless  attack  of  Con- 
gress. The  government  cannot  be  said  to  have  had  any  policy  in 
regard  to  its  treatment  of  the  Indians.  Bills  have  been  passed 
having  no  connection  with  each  other,  and  whose  only  object  was 
to  satisfy  the-  unjust  claims  of  western  constituents.  In  many 
instances,  particularly  in  President  Cleveland's  administration, 
these  unjust  bills  have  been  prevented  from  becoming  law  by 
the  exercise  of  the  veto.7 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  2.  *  Appendix  A,  Nos.  56,  58. 

2  Ibid.,  No.  6.  6  Ibid.,  No.  92. 
8  Ibid.,  Nos.  51,  52.                           6  Ibid.,  No.  119. 

7  See  ante,  §  41;  Appendix  A,  No.  393. 


§§  124-127.]  Effect  on  Legislation.  133 

Many  other  illustrations  might  be  given  of  the  use  of  the  veto 
to  prevent  the  enactment  of  unwise  laws.  All  of  Grant's  pension 
vetoes,  and  many  of  Cleveland's,  were  based  on  the  technical  de- 
fects or  unnecessary  character  of  the  bills.  This  was  also  true  of 
the  veto  of  many  relief  bills,  and  of  Cleveland's  veto  of  the  act 
"for  the  promotion  of  anatomical  science."1 

To  the  numerous  vetoes  mentioned  in  this  paragraph  no  just 
exception  can  be  taken  :  few  or  none  of  them  encountered  a  two- 
thirds  vote  in  either  House,  and  they  go  far  toward  proving  the 
indispensable  character  of  the  power  we  are  studying. 

§  127.  prevention  of  unwise  lines  of  police — _In  several  in^. 
stances  the  veto  has  been  used  not  merely  to  prevent  the  enact- 
ment of  a  single  unwise  law,  but  to  s^p  t^fi  execution  of  an  unwise 
policy  by  Congress.  The  most  striking  example  was  the  bank  con- 
troversy!" The  scheme  of  a  United  States  Bank  had  been  recog- 
nized by  the  Supreme  Court,  approved  by.  Madison,  had  been  in 
fill  operation  for  twenty  years,  and  was  thought  well  of  by  the 
people;  yet  the  vetoes  of  Jackson  and  Tyler  destroyed  the  plan 
beyond  the  hope  of  reconstruction.^ 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  it  is  the  policy  of  Congress  to  en- 
croach on  the  executive.  There  is,  however,  and  always  has  been, 
a  tendency  of  which  Congress  is  perhaps  unconscious,  —  a  politi- 
cal attraction  of  gravitation,  which  causes  the  legislative  depart- 
ment to  seize  power  whenever  possible.  The  tendency,  if  it  cannot 
be  dignified  by  the  name  of  policy,  has  many  times  been  checked 
by  the  use  of  the  veto.3  A  recent  instance  is  President  Hayes's 
refusal  to  sign  bills  which  were  framed  with  the  intention  of  com- 
pelling the  President  to  approve  measures  which  if  presented  by 
themselves  would  not  have  been  approved.  The  struggle  was 
severe  and  protracted,  but  the  President  won,  thus  restoring  to 
the  executive  power  what  had  been  usurped  by  Congress  many 
years  before.4 

President  Cleveland's  refusal  to  approve  the  Texas  Seed  bill  is 
a  more  recent  illustration.  The  unfortunate  tendency  of  the  bill, 
and  the  policy  of  the  government  in  this  particular,  have  already 
been  discussed.5  It  is  enough  here  to  point  out  that  the  attempt 
has  been  checked  by  the  veto.  It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that 
the  check  is  probably  merely  temporary,  and  that  similar  demands 

1  Appendix  A,  No.  135.  2  Ante,  §§  57-59.  8  Ante,  §§  21-36. 

*  Ante,  §  35. 


1 34  Veto  Power :  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

are  likely  to  be  made  until,  like  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  internal 
improvements,  they  shall  have  become  too  strong  to  be  questioned. 

§  128.  Indirect  influence  of  the  veto  on  legislation.  —  It  is  not 
easy  to  specify  instances  in  which  the  veto  has  affected  legislation 
indirectly,  for  such  an  effect  must  almost  necessarily  be  of  a  kind 
that  would  not  ordinarily  appear  in  the  records.  It  is,  however, 
known  that  the  Compromise  of  1850  was  delayed  by  the  knowledge 
of  the  fact  that  President  Taylor  would  probably  veto  it  if  Con- 
gress passed  it.  Again,  President  Cleveland's  pension  vetoes  not 
only  killed  the  vetoed  bills,  but  prevented  the  passage  of  similar 
bills.  At  the  present  moment 1  the  fear  of  the  veto  is  an  argument 
against  extreme  silver  legislation. 

There  have  even  been  cases  in  which  both  Houses  have  been 
driven  by  a  flurry  of  popular  feeling  to  agree  to  measures  in  the 
hope  that  the  President  would,  by  his  veto,  prevent  the  act  from 
passing.  A  veto  is  like  a  decision  of  a  court,  an  announcement  to 
all  concerned  that  future  cases  of  the  same  kind  will  by  that  court 
be  treated  in  the  same  manner. 

§  129.  Vetoes  which  have  failed  of  their  object.  —  Many  times, 
however,  the  veto  has  not  succeeded  either  in  killing  a  particular 
bill  or  in  checking  legislation.  Twenty-nine  bills  have  been 
passed  over  the  veto,  and  in  many  cases  they  were  of  great  impor- 
tance ;  the  reconstruction  bills  vetoed  by  President  Johnson,  and 
the  Bland  silver  bill  which  President  Hayes  refused  to  sign2  are 
striking  examples.  In  these  instances  Congress  carried  out  its  pur- 
poses by  overriding  the  veto.  There  are  other  cases  even  more 
important  in  which  Congress  has  in  the  end  maintained  its  policy 
LOtwithstanding  the  vetoes.  Very  few  internal  improvement 
'vetoes,  and  no  public  land  vetoes,  have  been  overridden ;  but 
the  policy  of  the  government  in  these  two  respects  has  been  deter- 
mined in  opposition  to  the  President's  will.  The  weak  point  in 
the  veto  power  is  that  it  cannot,  or  at  least  does  not,  stand  in  the 
way  of  a  strong  and  continuous  public  sentiment.  A  temporary 
agitation,  a  craze  like  the  greenback  movement,  may  be  success- 
fully resisted,  but  no  President  can  permanently  stay  legislation 
like  the  internal  improvements.  The  veto  is  but  an  appeal  to 
the  sober  second  thought  of  the  nation,  and  when  that  second 
thought  is  like  the  first  the  appeal  can  accomplish  nothing. 

1  1890.  2  Appendix  A,  No.  117. 


§§  127-130-]  Failures.     Popular  Objections.  135 

This  seeming  weakness  in  the  veto  is  not  a  defect.  The  theory  of 
our  government  is  that  in  the  long  run  the  people  are  right.  The 
veto  would  be  a  hindrance  if  it  could  permanently  check  the  strong 
underlying  tendencies  in  the  public  mind.  And  in  any  case,  in  a 
government  founded  on  nearly  universal  suffrage,  a  positive  check 
to  popular  measures  is  not  what  is  wanted.  The  most  that  can 
safely  be  done  is  to  hinder  the  enactment  of  propositions  until  the 
people  can  determine  whether  they  are  really  in  earnest  in  their 
demands  ;  and  this  delay  the  veto  power  is  most  admirably  con- 
structed to  accomplish. 

§  130.  Popular  objections  to  the  veto. — Popular  objections  to 
the  veto  power  date  back  to  a  very  early  time  in  our  national  his- 
tory. In  1818  a  resolution  found  its  way  into  Congress  calling 
for  a  total  abolition  of  the  veto  power.1  The  ground  for  the  reso- 
lution was  the  undue  power  which,  it  was  asserted,  the  President 
possessed.  A  second  era  of  objection  to  the  veto  dates  from  about 
1833.  From  this  time  until  well  down  to  1850  the  President's 
right  to  refuse  his  signature  to  bills  was  vigorously  attacked.  It  was 
contended  that  since  the  veto  was  almost  never  overridden  it  was 
absolute,  and  therefore  contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  founders 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  genius  of  our  institutions.2  Again, 
it  was  urged  that  the  veto  had  been  given  to  the  executive  to 
strengthen  an  otherwise  weak  position,  but  that  the  President  was 
now  fortified  by  the  patronage  he  controlled,  and  hence  no  longer 
needed  the  veto.3  Again,  it  was  claimed  that  the  veto  had  been 
granted  to  the  President  to  be  used  only  in  defence  of  the  Consti- 
tution :  he  had  used  it  for  other  purposes,  and  therefore  it  should 
be  taken  from  him.4  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  objections  to 
the  use  of  the  veto  to  defend  the  Constitution,  on  the  ground  that 
the  Supreme  Court  had  been  established  to  settle  constitutional 
points.5  The  great  objection  to  the  veto  at  this  time,  however,  was 
that  it  took  a  two-thirds  majority  of  each  branch  of  Congress  to 
override  the  President's  will.  This  was  said  to  be  an  infringement 
of  the  right  of  the  majority  to  govern,  and  wholly  anti-republican.6 

1  Ex.  Papers,  15  Cong.,  I  sess..  Vol.  VIII,  No.  200. 

2  House  Reports,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  V,  No.  1104. 

3  Democratic  Review,  XXIV,  19. 

4  American  Whig  Review,  X,  1 21. 

5  Democratic  Review,  XXIV,  20. 

6  American  Whig  Review,  X,  113. 


136  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

The  outcry  against  the  " monarchical"  character  of  the  veto 
subsided  rapidly  after  Tyler's  administration ;  and  the  veto  power 
was  accepted  as  it  stood  until  President  Hayes's  administration. 
The  struggle  at  that  time  over  riders  upon  appropriation  bills  gave 
rise  to  a  new  agitation,  this  time  for  the  extension  of  the  veto 
power.  The  power  was  declared  incomplete  because  the  President 
could  not  refuse  his  assent  to  particular  items  in  the  appropriation 
bills  presented  to  him  without  destroying  the  bill.1  This  was  the 
difficulty  into  which  President  Hayes  was  thrown.  Complaint  has 
also  been  made  within  recent  years  because  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers present  and  voting,  instead  of  two-thirds  of  the  total  number 
of  members  in  each  branch,  can  pass  a  bill  over  the  veto. 

§  131.  Proposed  constitutional  amendments. — The  objections 
to  the  veto  power  referred  to  in  the  last  paragraph  are  readily 
arranged  in  three  well-defined  groups :  first,  scattering  complaints 
against  the  whole  power  and  a  desire  to  do  away  with  it ;  secondly, 
in  the  forties,  a  specific  outcry  because  the  veto  defeated  the  will 
of  the  majority ;  lastly,  fault  has  been  found  within  recent  years 
because  the  veto  was  not  powerful  enough.  The  propositions  to 
amend  the  veto  power  may  be  divided  into  corresponding  classes. 

§  132.  Attempts  to  destroy  the  power. —  Only  one  positive 
attempt  entirely  to  do  away  with  the  veto  has  been  found.  In 
1818  a  resolution  was  introduced  into  the  House  by  Mr.  Lewis, 
proposing  that  in  the  future  "  the  President  of  the  United  States 
shall  not  have  the  power  of  approving  or  disapproving  any  bill  or 
bills,  or  joint  resolutions  passed  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives."2 The  resolve  was  read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the 
table.3 

§  133.  Attempts  to  diminish  the  power.  —  Propositions  to  amend 
the  Constitution  so  as  to  diminish  the  veto  power  began  in  Presi- 
dent Jackson's  administration.  Hostility  to  Jackson  was  the  first 
principle  of  the  early  Whigs,  and  this  hostility  was  increased,  if 
not  occasioned,  by  the  President's  frequent  use  of  the  veto.  In 
1833  Senator  Kent  introduced  a  resolution  providing  for  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  so  that  the  majority  vote  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  each  House,  instead  of  two-thirds  of  those  present,  should 

1  For  provisions  in  State  Constitutions  on  this  subject,  see  Appendix  E,  Nos.  8,  9. 
The  President  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  had  this  power,  but  no  case  of  its  exercise 
has  been  found :  Appendix  C.  2  Ex.  Papers,  15  Cong.,  I  sess.,  Vol.  VIII. 

8  House  Journal,  15  Cong.,  I  sess.,  478,  479. 


§§130-134-]  Efforts  to  Amend.  137 

pass  a  bill  over  the  veto.1  This  resolution  was  read  a  second  time 
and  laid  on  the  table.2  Eleven  other  propositions  of  exactly  similar 
nature  have  since  been  offered  either  in  the  Senate  or  House,3  but 
in  no  case  was  the  resolution  passed  by  the  House  in  which  it  was 
presented. 

The  reasons  for  these  resolutions  have  already  been  referred  to 
in  stating  the  popular  objections  to  the  veto.  They  are  compactly 
stated  by  Mr.  Kent  in  a  speech  in  support  of  the  resolution  intro- 
duced in  1835.  His  arguments  for  the  proposed  change  were,  in 
the  first  place,  the  fact  that  the  veto  power  as  then  exercised 
tended  to  unite  the  legislative  and  executive  branches,  a  union 
which  was  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  govern- 
ment. In  the  second  place,  he  argued  that  the  veto  had  been 
granted  to  the  executive  only  as  a  means  of  Sefence,  and  that 
recent  Presidents  had  exceeded  their  authority.  Lastly,  Mr.  Kent 
maintained  that  the  executive  was  exceedingly  apt  to  encroach 
upon  the  other  branches  of  government,  and  that  therefore  the 
power  of  that  department  should  be  curtailed.4  The  occasion  for 
these  propositions  was  the  activity  of  Jackson  and  Tyler,  and 
the  bitter  sense  of  unexpected  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  execu- 
tive, felt  at  that  time  by  the  Whig  party.  It  is  extremely 
fortunate  that  the  attempts  did  not  succeed,  for  success  would 
have  meant  the  practical  destruction  of  the  veto,  and  the  com- 
plete control  of  affairs  by  the  majority  in  Congress.  The  rights 
of  the  minority  and  of  the  executive,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the 
nation,  would  have  lost  an  important  safeguard. 

§  1 34.  Attempts  to  enlarge  the  power.  —  President  Hayes,  after 
his  struggle  with  Congress  over  the  attaching  of  riders  to  appro- 
priation bills,  recommended  that  the  executive  be  given  the  power 
to  approve  or  veto  the  separate  items  of  an  appropriation  bill.  This 
recommendation  was  taken  up  and  acted  upon,  and  from  that  time 
to  the  present  there  has  been  a  constant  agitation  for  an  increase  of 
the  range  of  the  veto.  Twenty-four  resolutions  authorizing  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution  have  been  offered  in  Congress,  each  one 
of  which  embodied  President  Hayes's  suggestion.5 

This  measure  if  .adopted  not  only  would  increase  the  power  of 
the  veto,  but  also  would  practically  destroy  the  only  power  which 

1  Senate  Journal,  23  Cong.,  I  sess.,  65.  2  Ibid.,  74. 

8  1835,  l836,  1838,  1841(2),  1842(3),  1849,  1850,  1884. 

*  Debates  of  Congress,  Vol.  XI,  540. 

6  1876,  1879,  1882(4),  1883(9),  1884,  1885,  1886(4),  1888(3). 


138  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  [Ch.  vi. 

"Congress  now  has  over  the  President,  apart  from  impeachment. 
For,  as  a  recent  writer  has  observed,1  the  only  coercion  which 
Congress  can  make  use  of  against  the  President,  except  by  im- 
peachment, is  by  tacking  measures  distasteful  to  the  President  to 
general  appropriation  bills,  hoping  in  this  way  to  compel  him  to 
assent  to  measures  which,  if  presented  on  their  own  merits,  would 
surely  be  vetoed.  This  power  of  coercion  would  be  removed  by 
the  contemplated  amendment. 

The  amendment  would  moreover  almost  certainly  check  extrav- 
agant legislation.  A  President  would  have  every  incentive  to  use 
the  new  power.  Even  if  he  cared  not  to  check  extravagance  as  a 
matter  of  principle,  he  very  often  would  be  called  upon  to  do  it 
as  a  matter  of  party  policy,  and  the  exercise  of  the  power  from 
whatever  motive  would  be  of  advantage  to  the  country.  The  very 
least  that  could  be  said  is  that  the  change  would  not  increase  the 
expenditure  of  the  government,  and  in  all  probability  it  would 
diminish  it. 

Three  attempts  have  been  made  to  extend  the  power  of  the 
veto  by  making  a  two-thirds  majority  of  all  the  members  of  each 
branch  of  Congress  necessary  to  pass  a  bill  over  the  veto.2  The 
cause  of  the  resolutions  is  apparent.  August  I,  1882,  President 
Arthur  vetoed  a  river  and  harbor  bill.  August  2  it  was  passed 
over  the  veto  in  each  House  of  Congress  by  a  vote  of  less  than 
two-thirds  of  the  total  membership  of  that  House.3  August  4 
the  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution  was  introduced  by  Mr. 
Hutchins  of  New  York,  the  same  State  from  which  the  President 
came.  The  resolution  in  1883  was  introduced  by  the  same  man, 
and  the  one  in  1884  by  another  representative  from  the  State  of 
New  York.  The  resolutions  seem,  therefore,  very  much  like 
expressions  of  executive  displeasure  at  the  failure  of  the  veto,  just 
as  in  earlier  times  the  resolutions  to  diminish  the  veto  power  were 
expressions  of  congressional  displeasure  at  the  success  of  that 
power. 

§  135.  The  veto  power  in  1789  and  in  1889.  —  The  true  char- 
acter and  the  development  of  the  veto  power  may  best  be  under- 
stood by  a  comparison  of  the  veto  as  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
evidently  intended  it,  with  the  veto  as  exercised  a  century  later. 

1  Bryce,  American  Commonwealth,  I,  207-211. 

2  1882,  1883,  1884. 

8  Appendix  A,  No.  131. 


134,  1  350  The   Veto  in  2789  and  in  1889.  139 


the  Constitution  was  founded,  the  great  fear  in  men^s 
minds  was  that  of  executive  usurpation.  But  the.  experience  of  the 
Continental  Congress,  of  the  Confederation,  and  of  the  States 
had  also  shown  to  what  lengths  an  unchecked  legislature  can  go. 
Hence,  men  like  Hamilton  1  pointed  out  the  tendency  of  the  legis- 
lative department  to  encroach  on  the  executive,  and  the  necessity 
of  a  veto,  absolute  or  qualified.  They  had  also  clearly  in  mind  the 
prevention  of  hasty  and  imprudent  legislation.1  Hamilton  early 
expresses  this  fear  in  the  Federalist  :  "  It  establishes  a  salutary 
check  upon  the  legislative  body  calculated  to  guard  the  community 
against  the  effects  of  faction,  precipitancy,  or  of  any  impulse 
unfriendly  to  the  public  good,  which  may  happen  to  influence 
a  majority  of  that  body."  2 

The  actual  use  of  the  veto  power  is  an  interesting  commentary 
upon  the  expectations  of  those  who  established  it.  No  idea  was 
apparently  entertained  that  the  veto  would  ever  be  necessary  to 
prevent  Congress  from  unconstitutionally  enlarging  its  powers. 
except  in  the  direction  of  encroachments  upon  the  executive  ;  yet 
the  ^ost  important  class  of  constitutional  vetoes  Jiave  been  for 
this  unanticipated  purpose.  In  the  category  we  find  Washington's 
first  veto,3  the  long  series  of  internal  improvement  vetoes,4  the 
public  land  vetoes,5  the  veto  of  the  Texas  Seed  bill,6  and  others. 

More  numerous  than  the_vetoes  just  referred  to,  if  not  more 
important,  are  those  based  upon  grounds  of  expediency.  This 
series,  like  the  last,  began  in  President  Washington's  administra- 
tion, and  has  been  increasing  in  numbers  and  importance  ever. 
since.  Prominent  in  the  group  are  the  pension  and  relief  vetoes.7 

Last  of  all  we  come  to  the  vetoes  which  Hamilton  mentioned 
first  :  those  for  the  protection  of  the  executive.8  These  vetoes 
liave  been  of  great  service,  but  their  practical  importance  is  much 
less  than  that  of  either  of  the  preceding  classes,  and  they  are 
tewer  in  number.. 

The  veto  power  then  has  not  followed  the  course  marked  out 
for  it  by  the  Federal  Convention,  but  has  worked  out  for  itself 
a  path  different  both  in  direction  and  extent  from  that  prophesied. 
The  change  is  no  proof  of  weakness  in  the  veto,  but  rather  shows 

1  Madison,  Works,  IV,  369.  5  Ante,  §§  46-49. 

2  Federalist,  No.  73.  6  Ante,  §§  95,  96. 
8  Ante,  §  14.  7  Ante,  §§  65-81. 
*  Ante,  §§  83-94-  8 


tJHI7EESITr' 


140  Veto  Power:  —  Political  Development.  Ch.  vi. 

its  vigor.  The  power  can  be  adapted  to  the  changing  needs  of 
the  nation,  without  losing  its  efficacy.  Indeed,  the  difference 
between  the  veto  in  1789  and  in  1889  is  not  a  difference  in  nature 
but  in  exercise.  Then  it  was  used  sparingly  and  in  a  cumbrous 
manner  as  a  weapon  of  constitutional  warfare ;  to-day  it  is  used 
frequently  and  easily  as  a  means  of  preventing  mistakes  in  the 
administration  of  the  business  of  the  government.  This  latter 
use  is  likely  to  become  of  increasing  value  as  time  goes  on,  for  : 
"As  the  business  of  the  country  increases,  as  legislation  piles  its 
bills  still  higher,  and  as  the  whole  social  and  political  network 
grows  more  complicated  in  its  demands  and  conflict  of  interests 
and  its  multiplicity  of  interferences,  more  and  more  will  be  the 
necessity  of  cutting  Gordian  knots  with  the  swift,  sharp  edge  of  a 
single  blow,  and  of  having  an  executive  brave  enough  to  take 
the  responsibility  of  interposing  his  veto." 


APPENDIX   A. 

A    CHRONOLOGICAL    LIST    OF    ALL    BILLS    VETOED 

FROM   APRIL    6,    1789,    TO    MARCH   4,    1889, 
TOGETHER   WITH   A    BRIEF    LEGISLATIVE    HISTORY   OF    EACH    BILL. 


Explanation  of  Signs  and  Abbreviations. 

A  single  star  (*)  placed  before  the  number  of  the  veto  indicates  that  the  bill  passed 
one  of  the  houses  of  Congress  over  the  veto. 

A  double  star  (**)  placed  before  the  number  of  the  veto  indicates  that  the  bill 
passed  both  houses  of  Congress  over  the  veto,  and  thus  became  a  law  without  the 
President's  signature. 

A  dagger  (f)  placed  before  the  number  of  the  veto  indicates  that  the  bill  was 
disposed  of  by  a  "  pocket  veto." 

The  dates  which  precede  the  words  "  in  the,"  in  the  history  of  the  bill,  indicate  the 
day  on  which  the  bill  was  introduced  into  one  of  the  houses  of  Congress,  and  the  day  on 
which  it  passed  that  house;  e.g.,  the  first  dates  in  the  history  of  the  first  bill  mean  that 
on  Feb.  7,  1792,  the  bill  was  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  that  on 
Feb.  21  it  passed  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  letter  P  placed  after  a  page  of  the  Senate  Journal  indicates  that  on  that  page 
is  recorded  the  passage  by  the  Senate  of  the  bill  under  consideration. 

The  letter  P  placed  after  a  page  of  the  House  Journal  indicates  that  on  that  page 
is  recorded  the  passage  by  the  House  of  the  bill  under  consideration. 

The  letter  R  after  a  page  of  the  Senate  Journal  indicates  that  on  that  page  is 
recorded  the  reconsideration  of  the  bill  under  consideration. 

The  letter  R  after  a  page  of  the  House  Journal  indicates  that  on  that  page  is 
recorded  the  reconsideration  of  the  bill  under  consideration. 

The  sign  O  after  a  page  indicates  that  on  that  page  will  be  found  the  text  of  the  veto. 

In  references  to  the  journals  and  in  the  numbers  of  the  bills,  sess.  stands  for  session, 
and  Cong,  for  Congress.  Thus  in  the  first  veto,  /  sess.  2  Cong,  means  first  session  of  the 
second  Congress. 

After  the  title  of  each  veto  the  paragraphs  of  the  text  in  which  that  veto  is  discussed 
will  be  placed,  enclosed  in  brackets,  thus:  [§  i]. 

Texts  of  the  Vetoes. 

Reference  (by  the  sign  O)  is  in  this  Appendix  invariably  made  to  the  Journals, 
because  they  are  official,  and  are  the  only  source  in  which  all  the  messages  appear. 
Nearly  all  the  messages  down  to  Aug.  4,  1886,  will  be  found  in  the  Senate  Miscella- 
neous Documents,  No.  58,  of  the  2  sess.  of  the  49  Cong.  Most  of  the  messages  down 
to  1854  can  be  found  in  the  Statesman's  Manual.  Lastly,  a  large  proportion  of  the 
messages  will  be  found,  under  the  date  of  the  message,  in  the  records  of  Congressional 
debates;  viz.:  Annals  of  Congress  (1789-1824);  Debates  in  Congress  (1825-1837); 
Congressional  Globe  (1833-1873);  Congressional  Record  (1873-1889). 


142  List  of  Vetoes.  [AFP.  A 

PRESIDENT   WASHINGTON   (1789-1797). -[2  VETOES.] 

1.  Apportionment  of  representatives.     [§§  14,  121.] 

H.  R.  163,  i  sess.  2  Cong.  "  An  act  for  an  apportionment  of  Representatives  among 
the  several  States,  according  to  the  first  enumeration." 

1792.     Feb.  7  to  Feb.  21,  in  the  House. Feb.  21  to  Mar.  12,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  5,  vetoed. Apr.  6,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  28-33. 

House  Journal,  vol.  I.,  i  and  2  Cong.     pp.  503,  507,  509,  510,  511,  516  P,  535,  538, 

540,  543,  544,  545,  549,  551,  563  O,  565  R. Senate  Journal,  vol.  I.,  i  sess.  2  Cong. 

PP-  394.  396,  404>  4°5>  406,  408,  409  P,  415,  416,  422. 

2.  Reduction  of  the  army.     [§§  97,  121.] 

H.  R.  219,  2  sess.  4  Cong.  "  An  act  to  alter  and  amend  an  act  entitled  '  An  act  to 
ascertain  and  fix  the  military  establishment  of  the  United  States.' " 

1797.     Jan.  30  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  House. Feb.  9  to  Feb.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

Feb.  28,  vetoed. Mar.  I,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  55-36. 

House  Journal,  vol.  II.,  3  and 4  Cong.     pp.  666,  679,  683,  685  P,  708,  709,  714,  726  O, 

728  R. Senate  Journal,  vol.  II.,  2  sess.  4  Cong.     pp.  321,  326,  327,  328  P,  329,  330, 

3390. 

PRESIDENT    MADISON  (1809-1817). -[6  VETOES.] 

3.  Incorporating  church  in  Alexandria.     [§  39.] 

H.  R.  155, 3  sess.  n  Cong.  "  An  act  incorporating  the  Protestant-Episcopal  Church 
in  the  town  of  Alexandria,  in  the  District  of  Columbia." 

A  i   1810.     Dec.  30  to  181 1,  Jan.  28,  in  the  House. 181 1,  Jan.  28  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1811.     Feb.  21,  vetoed. Feb.  23,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  29-74. 

House  Journal,  vol.  VII.,  n  Cong.     pp.  457,  463,  504,  506  P,  538,  547,  554,  566  O, 

569,  570  R. Senate  Journal,  vol.  IV.,  3  sess.  n  Cong.     pp.  552,  553,  559,  561,  565, 

566  P,  570,  573,  582. 

4.  Land-grant  for  church  in  Mississippi.     [§§  39,  46.] 

H.  R.  ijo,  3  sess.  n  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Richard  Tervin,  William  Cole- 
man,  Edwin  Lewis,  Samuel  Mims,  Joseph  Wilson,  and  the  Baptist  Church  at  Salem 
Meeting-House,  in  the  Mississippi  Territory." 

1811.  Jan.  7  to  Feb.  6,  in  the  House. Feb.  6  to  Feb.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

Feb.  28,  vetoed. Mar.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  33-55. 

House  Journal,  vol.  VII.,  n  Cong.     pp.  475,  533,  534  P,  564,  566,  574,  602  O,  608  R. 

Senate  Journal,  vol.  IV.,  3  sess.  n  Cong.      pp.  563,  564,  569,  576,  577  P,  579, 

583,  593- 

5.  Trials  in  district  courts.     [§  15.] 

H.  R.  81,  i  sess.  12  Cong.  "  An  act  providing  for  the  trial  of  causes  pending  in  the 
respective  District  Courts  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  the  absence  or  disability 
of  the  judges  thereof." 

1812.  Mar.  4  to  Mar.  10,  in  the  House. Mar.  10  to  Mar.  18,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  3,  vetoed. Apr.  8,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  26-70. 

House  Journal,  vol.  VIII.,  12  Cong.     pp.  219,  235,  240,  241  P,  255,  258,  259,  260, 

261,  262,  264,  274  O,  279,  281  R. Senate  Journal,  vol.  V.,  i  sess.  12  Cong.    pp.  72, 

74,  76,  78,  79  P,  82,  83,  99,  100. 

t  6.  Naturalization.     [§  40.] 

H.  R.  170,  i  sess.  12  Cong.  "  An  act  supplementary  to  the  acts  heretofore  passed  on 
the  subject  of  an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization." 


1792-1830]        Washington  s  to  Jackson  s  Administration.  143 

1812.     June  29  to  July  2,  in  the  House. July  2  to  July  4,  in  the  Senate. 

Nov.  6,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  vol.  VIII.,  12  Cong.     pp.  403,  413,  414  P,  421,  429,  544  O. Senate 

Journal,  vol.  V.,  i  sess.  12  Cong.     pp.  178,  179,  181,  182  P,  183,  184. 

7.  Incorporating  national  bank.     [§  56.] 

S.  67,  3  sess.  13  Cong.     "  An  act  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  of  America." 

1814.  Dec.  2  to  Dec.  9,  in  the  Senate. Dec.  9  to  1815,  Jan.  7,  in  the  House. 

1815.  Jan.  30,  vetoed. Feb.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   vote,  15-19. 

Senate  Journal,  -vol.  V.,  3  sess.  13  Cong.     pp.  565,  566,  567,  568,  569,  570,  571  P,  597- 

603,  606-610,  614,  620  O,  622,  631  R. House  Journal,  3  sess.  13  Cong.     pp.  294, 

295»  330,  389»  392,  394.  403,  4*4.  4*9,  434,  44°,  45°»  47^,  484  P,  526,  531,  S46>  553.  604- 

8.  Internal  improvements  (Bonus  Bill).     [§§  84-110.] 

H.  R.  2g,  2  sess.  14  Cong.     "  An  act  to  set  apart  and  pledge  certain  funds  for  internal 
improvements." 

1816.  Dec.  23  to  1817,  Feb.  8,  in  the  House. 1817,  Feb.  10  to  Feb.  28,  in  the  Senate. 

1817.  Mar.  3,  vetoed. Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  61-63. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  14  Cong.     pp.  98,  341,  345,  351,  369  P,  492,  504,  519,  534  O  R. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess,  14  Cong.     pp.  21 6,  223,  239,  284,  308,  3ir,  320,  339,  340, 

341  P,  356,  374,  375,  393,  405-409  O. 

PRESIDENT    MONROE  (1817-1825). -[I  VETO.] 

9.  Internal  improvements  (Cumberland  Road).     [§§  85,  121.] 

H.  R.  jo,  i  sess.  17  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of  the  Cumberland 
Road." 

1822.    Jan.  21  to  Apr.  29,  in  the  House. Apr.  29  to  May  3,  in  the  Senate. 

May  4,  vetoed. May  6,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  68-72. 

House  'Journal,  i  sess.  17  Cong.     pp.  169,  469,  491,  495,  496,  513  P,  549,  553,  560  O, 

578  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  17  Cong.     pp.  316,  317,  318,  324,  331  P,  333,  335, 

337»  338. 

PRESIDENT  JACKSON   (1829-1837). -[12  VETOES.] 

10.  Internal  improvements  (Maysville  Road).     [§  86.] 

H.  R.  285,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     "  An  act  to  authorize  a  subscription  of  stock  in  the  Mays- 
rille,  Washington,  Paris,  and  Lexington  Turnpike  Road  Company." 

1830.     Feb.  24  to  Apr.  29,  in  the  House. Apr.  29  to  May  15,  in  the  Senate. 

May  27,  vetoed. May  28,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  96-92. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  333,  571,  581,  585  P,  664,  674,  733  O,  761  R. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  274,  276,  281,  285,  304,  306?,  311,  313, 

3l6,  340. 

11.  Internal  improvements  (turnpike  stock).     [§  86.] 

S.  27,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     "  An  act  to  authorize  a  subscription  of  stock  in  the  Washing- 
ton Turnpike  Road  Company." 

1829.  Dec.  30  to  1830,  May  13,  in  the  Senate. May  13  to  May  29,  in  the  House. 

1830.  May  31,  vetoed. May  31,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  21-17. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  55,  58,  256,  295,  298  P,  356,  357,  360,  360  O, 

382  R. House  Journal^  i  sess.  21  Cong.    pp.  646,  650,  654,  786,  801,  804  P,  807, 

809,  812. 


144  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1 12.  Internal  improvements  (light-houses  and  beacons).     [§  86.] 

H.  JR.  304,  i  sess.  21  Cong.  "  An  act  for  making  appropriations  for  building  light- 
houses, light-boats,  beacons,  and  monuments,  placing  buoys,  and  for  improving  harbors 
and  directing  surveys." 

1830.     Feb.  27  to  Apr.  7,  in  the  House. Apr.  7  to  May  13,  in  the  Senate. 

Dec.  6,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  348,  445,  510,  513  P,  646,  649,  668,  786,  790, 

801,  806. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  231,  252,  269,  287,  297,  299  P,  354. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  21  Cong.     p.  15  O. 

1 13.  Internal  improvements  (canal  stock).     [§  86.] 

S.  74,  i  sess.  21  Cong.  "  An  act  to  authorize  a  subscription  for  stock  in  the  Louisville 
and  Portland  Canal  Company." 

1830.  Jan.  26  to  Mar.  15,  in  the  Senate. Mar.  15  to  May  29,  in  the  House. 

Dec.  6,  veto  message  signed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  102,  117,  119,  184,  187  P,  356,  357,  360,  383. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  21  Cong.     pp.  419,  420,  786,  799,  803  P,  807,  809. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  21  Cong.     p.  130. 

14.  Extension  of  charter  of  the  U.  S.  Bank.     [§§  19,  57.] 
S.  147,  i  sess.  22  Cong.     "  An  act  to  modify  and  continue  the  act  entitled  '  An  act  to 
incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.' " 

1832.     Mar.  13  to  June  n,  in  the  Senate. June  II  to  July  3,  in  the  House. 

July  10,  vetoed. July  13,  reconsidered  by  Senate;  vote,  22-19. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  183,  296,  297,  302,  305,  308,  310,  314,  318,  324, 

327>  329.  333,  339,  34i,  344.  345  p>  394,  397»  4<>i,  433  O,  451,  456>  463  R. House 

Journal,  i  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  871,  874,  879,  1035,  1044,  1066,  1074  P,  1076,  1082, 
1097,  1162. 

t  15.  Interest  on  State  claims.     [§  54.] 

S.  5,  i  sess.  22  Cong.  "An  act  providing  for  the  final  settlement  of  the  claims  of 
States  for  interest  on  advances  to  the  United  States  made  during  the  last  war." 

1831.  Dec.  19  to  1832,  Jan.  5,  in  the  Senate. 1832,  Jan.  5  to  July  14,  in  the  House. 

1832.  Dec.  6,  veto  message  signed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  30,  54,  59,  62  P,  480,  482. House  Journal, 

1  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  156,  180,  237,  1166,  1174  P,  1180,  1186. Senate  Journal, 

2  sess.  22  Cong.    p.  19  O. 

f  16.  River  and  Harbor  BUI.     [§  86.] 

H.  R.  516,  z  sess.  22  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  improvement  of  certain  harbors  and  the 
navigation  of  certain  rivers." 

1832.     Mar.  29  to  June  5,  in  the  House. June  6  to  July  5,  in  the  Senate. 

Dec.  6,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  551,  791,  802,  827,  837,  848,  850,  852  P,  1092, 

1099,  1152,  1153,  1157,  1165,  1183. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  331,  368, 

393,  399,  4°4  P»  45 6>  46o,  468,  469,  481. House  Journal,  2  sess.  22  Cong.     p.  24  O. 

1 17.  Proceeds  of  land  sales  (Clay's  biU).     [§§  46,  101.] 
S.  6,  2  sess.  22  Cong.     "An  act  to  appropriate  for  a  limited  time  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  and  for  granting  lands  to  certain  States." 

1832.  Dec.  ii  to  1833,  Jan.  25,  in  the  Senate. 1833,  Jan.  25  to  Mar.  i,  in  the 

House. 

1833.  Dec.  4,  veto  message  signed. 


1830-1841]         Jackson  s  and  Tyler  s  Administrations.  145 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  22  Cong.     pp.  26,  53,  54,  63,  70,  73,  76,  80,  85,  104,  107, 

109,  in,  114,  119,  123,  125,  137,  138  P,  229,  230,  236. House  Journal,  2  sess. 

22  Cong.     pp.  239,  459,  460  P,  461,  462,  470. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  23  Cong. 

pp.  21  O,  50,  240. 

1 18.  Internal  improvements  (Wabash  River).     [§  86.] 

S.  97,  /  sess.  23  Cong.     "  An  act  to  improve  the  navigation  of  the  Wabash  River." 

1834.  Feb.  18  to  June  26,  in  the  Senate. June  26  to  June  28,  in  the  House. 

Dec.  i,  veto  message  signed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  23  Cong.     pp.  146,  182,  357  P,  358,  382,  385,  387,  415. 

House  Journal,  /  sess.  23  Cong.     pp.  845,  853,  887,  888  P,  893,  901,  930. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  23  Cong.     p.  23  O. 

19.  Compromising  claims  against  the  Two  Sicilies.     [§21.] 

S.  160,  2  sess.  23  Cong.  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  com- 
promise the  Claims  allowed  by  the  Commissioners  under  the  Treaty  with  the  King  of  the 
Two  Sicilies,  concluded  October  14,  1832." 

1835.  Feb.  12  to  Feb.  27,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  27  to  Feb.  28,  in  the  House. 

Mar.  3,  vetoed. Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   laid  on  the  table. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  23  Cong.     pp.  156,  199  P,  203,  215,  217,  222,  233  O  R. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  23  Cong.     pp.  476,  481  P,  503,  514. 

20.  Regulation  for  congressional  sessions.     [§  14.] 

S.  141,  i  sess.  24  Cong.     "  An  act  to  appoint  a  day  for  the  annual  meeting  of  Congress." 

1836.  Feb.  1 6  to  June  2,  in  the  Senate. June  3,  in  the  House. 

June  9,  vetoed. June  27,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  16-23. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  24  Cong.  pp.  165,  393,  400  P,  401,  403,  406,  415,  421  O,  467, 
486  R. House  Journal,  i  sess.  24  Cong.  pp.  928,  931  P,  938,  970,  1108. 

t  21.   Funds  receivable  for  United  States  revenues.     [§  60.] 

S.  144,  2  sess.  24  Cong.     "  An  act  designating  and  limiting  the  funds  receivable  for  the 

revenues  of  the  United  States." 

^37-    Jan-  J8  to  Feb.  10,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  10  to  Mar.  I,  in  the  House. 

Mar.  3,  11.45  P-M.,  veto  message  signed.1 
Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  24  Cong.     pp.  133,  144,  165,  169,  173,  177,  235  P,  309,  313, 

326. House  Journal,  2  sess.  24  Cong.     pp.  368,  420,  510,  556,  558  P,  567,  580. 

PRESIDENT   TYLER  (1841-1845). -[9  VETOES.] 

22.  Incorporating  the  Fiscal  Bank.     [§§  58,  124,  128.] 

S.  5,  /  sess.  27  Cong.  "  An  act  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  of 
the  United  States." 

1841.     June  21  to  July  28,  in  the  Senate. July  28  to  Aug.  6,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  1 6,  vetoed. Aug.  19,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  25-24. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  2f  Cong.     pp.  51,  60,  65,  68,  70,  71,  73,  74,  76,  78,  81,  84,  86, 

88,  100,  102,  104,  114,  116,  122,  125?,  143,  144,  145,  1650,  173,  178  R. House 

Journal,  i  sess.  27  Cong.     pp.  288,  307,  311,  314,  318,  322,  323,  324  P,  326,  387. 

23.  Incorporating  the  Fiscal  Corporation.     [§  58.] 

H.  R.  14,  i  sess.  27  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  better  collection,  safe  keeping 
and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenue,  by  means  of  a  corporation  styled  the  Fiscal 
Corporation  of  the  United  States." 

1  This  message  was  never  sent  to  Congress,  but  was  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State.  See  Senate 
Miscellaneous  Documents,  No.  53,  p.  151,  49  Cong.  2  Sess. 


146  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1841.  July  21  to  Aug.  23,  in  the  House. Aug.  24  to  Sept.  3,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  9,  vetoed. Sept.  10,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   vote,  103-80. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  27  Cong.     pp.  267,  394,  404,  405,  409  P,  410,  459,  460,  485  O, 

497  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  27   Cong.     pp.  212,  220,   228,  232,  234  P,  236, 

255- 

24.  First  Whig  tariff  bill.     [§§46,  53.] 

H.  R.  480,  2  sess.  27  Cong.  "  An  act  to  extend  for  a  limited  period  the  present  laws 
for  laying  and  collecting  duties  on  imports." 

1842.  June  9  to  June  15,  in  the  House. June  15  to  June  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  29,  vetoed. July  4,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  42-144. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.     pp.  936,  943,  967,  969,  972,  974  P,  1014,  1016,  1023, 

1025,  1032  O,  1043,  1045,  1047,  1050  R. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.    pp.  400, 

402,  407,  417,  426,  428  P,  430,  431,  453. 

25.  Second  Whig  tariff  bill.     [§§  46,  53.] 

H.  R.  472,  2  sess.  27  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  revenue  from  imports,  and  to  change 
and  modify  existing  laws  imposing  duties  on  imports,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1842.     June  3  to  July  16,  in  the  House. July  18  to  Aug.  5,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  9,  vetoed. Aug.  17,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   vote,  126-76. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.  pp.  911,  933,  939,  995,  998,  1000,  1003,  1004,  1056, 
1057,  1061,  1062,  1067,  1069,  1070,  1073,  1078-1110,  i  no  P,  1225,  1226^  1228,  1242  O, 

1252,  1261,  1296,  1327  R,  1343. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong,     pp.472,  487, 

503*  5°8»  5"»  5!3»  5JS»  520»  526»  528»  53*>  537»  544  P,  545»  547»  549- 

t  26.   Proceeds  of  public  land  sales.     [§  46.] 

H.  R.  604,  2  sess.  27  Cong.  "  An  act  to  repeal  the  proviso  of  the  sixth  section  of  the 
act  entitled  *  An  act  to  appropriate  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  and  to 
grant  pre-emption  rights.' " 

1842.     Aug.  25  to  Aug.  26,  in  the  House. Aug.  26  to  Aug.  29,  in  the  Senate. 

Dec.  14,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.     pp.  1409,  1420,  1422,  1423  P,  1444,  1450,  1468. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.     pp.  613,  626,  631  P,  640,  645. House  Journal, 

3  sess.  27  Cong.    p.  57  O. 

t  27.  Testimony  in  contested  elections.     [§  15.] 

H.  R.  210,  2  sess.  27  Cong.  "  An  act  regulating  the  taking  of  testimony  in  cases  of 
contested  elections,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1842.  Feb.  21  to  Aug.  8,  in  the  House. Aug.  9  to  Aug.  29,  in  the  Senate. 

Dec.  14,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.,    pp.  418,  693,  1217,  1227,  1232,  1233  P,  1444,  1446, 

1452,  1453,  1458,  1464,  1471,  1478. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  27  Cong.     pp.  557,  561, 

585,  597,  603,  626,  632?,  637,  638,  640,  642,  647,  648. House  Journal,  3  sess. 

27  Cong.     p.  57  O. 

t  28.   Payment  of  Cherokee  certificates.     [§  41.] 

H.  R.  37,  3  sess.  27  Cong.  Resolution  "  directing  payment  of  the  certificates  or 
awards  issued  by  the  commissioners,  under  the  treaty  with  the  Cherokee  Indians." 

1843.  Feb.  9  to  Feb.  25,  in  the  House. Feb.  25  to  Mar.  2,  in  the  Senate. 

Dec.  1 8,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  3  sess.  27  Cong.  pp.  339,  457,  462  P,  542,  553,  557. Senate  Jour- 
nal, 3  sess.  27  Cong.  pp.  222,  229,  261,  275  P,  284,  295. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

28  Cong.    p.  69  O. 


1841-1847]  Tyler  s  to  Pierce  s  Administration.  147 

29.   Rivera  and  harbors.     [§  87.] 

H.  R.  203,  i  sess.  28  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriation  for  certain  harbors  and 
rivers." 

1844.  Mar.  8  to  May  16,  in  the  House. May  17  to  June  I,  in  the  Senate. 

June  u,  vetoed. June  II,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  104-84. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  28  Cong.     pp.  542,  751,  752,  770,  772,  842,  934,  935,  936,  937, 

938  P,  1001,  1002,  1081  O,  1083  R,  1084,  1085,  1086,  1093,  1097. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  28  Cong.     pp.  286,  287,  294,  317  P,  321,  324,  327,  347. 

**  30.   Revenue  cutters  and  steamers.     [§§  21,  129.] 

S.  66,  2  sess.  28  Cong.     "  An  act  relating  to  revenue  cutters  and  steamers." 

1845.  Jan.  6  to  Feb.  4,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  4  to  Feb.  7,  in  the  House. 

Feb.  20,  vetoed. Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

41  to  i. Mar.  3,  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  127  to  30. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  28  Cong.     pp.  73,  78,  124,  133  P,  145,  149,  157,  193  O,  194, 

197,  203,  256  R,  262. House  Journal,  2  sess.  28  Cong.     pp.  324,  326,  339  P,  348, 

568  R. 

PRESIDENT   POLK   (1845-1849). -[3  VETOES.] 

31.  Riveis  and  harbors.     [§  88.] 

H.  R.  18,  i  sess.  29  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of 
certain  harbors  and  rivers." 

1845.  Dec.  31  to  J^46>  Mar-  20» in  the  House. 1846,  Mar.  23  to  July  24,  in  the 

Senate. 

1846.  Aug.  3,  vetoed. Aug.  4,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  97-91. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  29  Cong.  pp.  180,  408,  409,  448,  460,  464,  492,  493,  500,  503, 
504,  508,  514,  516,  518,  522,  525,  531,  536,  537,  538,  539-566,  566  P,  1146,  1150,  1154, 

12090,  1217  R,  1218. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  29  Cong.     pp.  208,  309,  426,  429, 

440  P,  444,  446,  447,  480. 

32.  French  spoliation  claims.     [§  64.] 

S.  68,  i  sess.  29  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  ascertainment  and  satisfaction  of 
claims  of  American  citizens  for  spoliations  committed  by  the  French  prior  to  the  thirty- 
first  day  of  July,  1801." 

1846.     Feb.  2  to  June  8,  in  the  Senate. June  8  to  Aug.  4,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  8,  vetoed. Aug.  10,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  27-15. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  29   Cong.     pp.   128,  258,  261,  277,  302,  305,  308,  316,  330, 

334  P,  480,  482,  489,  490,  513  O,  520  R. House  Journal,  i  sess.  29  Cong.     pp.  924, 

932,  1071,  1185,  1208,  1219,  1221,  1223  P,  1225,  1242,  1248,  1308. 

t  33.  Internal  improvements.     [§88.] 

H.  R.  84,  z  sess.  29  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  continuing  certain  works  in  the 
Territory  of  Wisconsin,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1846.  Jan.  9  to  1847,  Feb.  20,  in  the  House. 1847,  Feb.  22  to  Mar.  3,  in  the  Senate. 

1847.  Dec.  15,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  29  Cong.     pp.  216,  608. House  Journal,  2  sess.  29  Cong. 

PP-  377,  378,  394»  395  P»  5O5»  5°6,  509. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  29  Cong.     pp.  218, 

221,  223,  269  P,  274,  287. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  82  O,  101,  534,  560. 

PRESIDENT    PIERCE   (1853-1857). -[9  VETOES.] 

34.   Land  grants  for  indigent  insane.     [§  47.] 

S.  44,  i  sess.  33  Cong.  "  An  act  making  a  grant  of  public  lands  to  the  several  States 
for  the  benefit  of  indigent  insane  persons." 


148  List  of  Vetoes.  [AFP.  A 

1853.  Dec.  21  to  1854,  Mar.  8,  in  the  Senate. 1854,  Mar.  8  to  Apr.  19,  in  the  House. 

1854.  May  3,  vetoed. July  6,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  21-26. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  33  Cong.  pp.  58,  121,  171,  202,  203,  224,  227,  230,  241,  243  P, 
334,  340,  343.  348,  301  O,  372,  374,  390,  393,  395,  397,  420,  423, 431, 444, 447,  450,  453, 

454,  476,  477,  478  R,  479. House  Journal,  i  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  467,  576,  665- 

670  P,  694,  1105. 

35.  Internal  improvements  (completion).     [§  89.] 

H.  R.  392,  i  sess.  33  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriation  for  the  repair,  preservation 
and  completion  of  certain  public  works  heretofore  commenced  under  the  authority  of 
law." 

1854.     June  10  to  July  13,  in  the  House. July  13  to  Aug.  I,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  4,  vetoed.1 Dec.  6,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,'  95-80. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  979,  1125,  1126,  1130,  1131,  1133-1136,  1136  P, 

1247,  126-2,  1263,  1284,  1311,  1313-1318,  1323-1325,  1327,  1334,  1337,  13400. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  33   Cong.     pp.  501,  502,  555,  592,  593,  599,  600,  601,  609-611, 

615-618,  618  P,  666,  667,  678,  679,  684,  686. House  Journal,  2  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  8, 

9,  49  R,  50,  124. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  36,  79,  91. 

36.  French  spoliation  claims.     [§64.] 

H.  R.  117,  i  sess.  33  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  ascertainment  of  claims  of 
American  citizens  for  spoliations  committed  by  the  French  prior  to  the  thirty-first  of 
July,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  one." 

1854.  Jan.  4  to  1855,  Jan.  27,  in  the  House. 1855,  Jan.  29  to  Feb.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

1855.  Feb.  17,  vetoed. Feb.  19,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  113-86. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  163,  164. House  Journal,  2  sess.  33   Cong. 

pp.  237,  239,  240,  243,  250,  252,  253  P,  335,  341,  352,  397  O,  413  R,  414,  415. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  1 68,   174,  180,   181,  198,  204,  205  P,  222,  226, 
232,  292. 

37.  Subsidy  for  ocean  mails.     [§  82.] 

H.  R.  595,  2  sess.  33  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  transportation  of 
the  United  States  mail,  by  ocean  steamers  and  otherwise,  during  the  fiscal  years  ending 
the  30th  day  of  June,  1855,  and  the  3Oth  of  June,  1856." 

1854.  Dec.  22  to  1855,  Feb.  17,  in  the  House. 1855,  Feb.  17  to  Feb.  28,  in  the 

Senate. 

1855.  Mar.  3,  vetoed. Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  79-99. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  33  Cong.  pp.  102,  383,  384,  387,  388,  389,  391-396,  396  P, 
497,  506,  509,  540  O,  541,  542,  543,  544,  545,  546  R,  547. Senate  Journal,  2  sess. 

33  Cong.    pp.  282,  290,  314,  335,  336,  342,  343,  344  P,  345,  353,  357,  382. 

**  38.  Internal  improvements  (Mississippi  River).     [§§  89,  109.] 
S.  14,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     "  An  act  to  remove  obstructions  to  navigation  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi  River  at  the  Southwest  Pass  and  Pass  a  POutre." 

1856.  Feb.  4  to  Mar.  17,  in  the  Senate. Mar.  20  to  May  12,  in  the  House. 

May  19,  vetoed. July  7,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;    passed  over  the  veto, 

31  to  12. July  8,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  143-55. 

Senate  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.  pp.  85,  93,  187  P,  321,  322,  323,  340  O,  341, 
348>  359>  362,  365,  402,  418  R,  419,  431,  432,  433. House  Journal,  i  and  2  sess. 

34  Cong.    pp.  703,  779,  908,  959,  960  P,  964,  987,  1174,  1175,  1176  R. 

1  Dec.  30,  1854,  the  President  gave  his  reasons  for  this  veto  at  considerable  length.  See  Senate  Mis- 
cellaneous  Documents,  No.  53,  p.  221,  49  Cong.  2  sess. 


1854-1859]       Pierce  s  and  Buchanans  Administrations.  149 

**  39.   Internal  improvements  (Saint  Clair  Plats).     [§  89.] 
S.  i,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     "  An  act  making  an  appropriation  for  deepening  the 
channel  over  the  Saint  Clair  Flats,  in  the  State  of  Michigan." 
1856.     Feb.  4  to  Mar.  17,  in  the  Senate.  -  Mar.  20  to  May  5,  in  the  House. 

May  19,  vetoed.  -  July  7,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto, 

28  to  8.  -  July  8,  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  139  to  55. 
Senate  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  83,  84,  91,   186  P,  304,  305,  310,  311, 
341  O,  342,  420  R,  431,  432,  433.  -  House  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  703, 
779,  923,  924  P,  933,  987,  H74,  1  176  R- 

**  40.   Internal  improvements  (Saint  Mary's  River).     [§  89.] 
S.  2,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     "An  act  making  an  appropriation  for  deepening  the 
channel  over  the  flats  of  the  Saint  Mary's  River  in  the  State  of  Michigan." 
1856.     Feb.  4  to  Mar.  17,  in  the  Senate.  -  Mar.  20  to  May  12,  in  the  House. 

May  22,  vetoed.  -  July  7,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

28  to  10.  -  July  8,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  136  to  54. 
Senate  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  84,  91,  186  P,  321-323,  351  O,  352, 
419  R,  432,  433.  -  House  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  703,  779,  957  P,  964, 
987,  1174,  U77'R. 

**  41.   Internal  improvements  (Des  Moines  Rapids).     [§§  89,  in.] 
H.  R.  12,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     "  An  act  for  continuing  the  improvement  of  the  Des 
Moines  Rapids  in  the  Mississippi  River." 
1856.     Feb.  18  to  July  28,  in  the  House.  -  July  28  to  July  31,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  n,  vetoed.  -  Aug.  n,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

130  to  54.  -  Aug.  1  6,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  30  to  14. 
House  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  555,  556,  871,  1292,  1293,  1294  P,  1333, 
1334,  1420  O  R,  1421,  1505.  -  Senate  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  485,  486, 
491,  492,  501  P,  508,  509,  512,  559,  560,  585,  597,  620  R,  621. 

**  42.   Internal  improvements  (Patapsco  River).     [§§  89,  in.] 

S.  53,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Patapsco  River,  and  to  render  the  Port  of  Baltimore  accessible  to  the  war  steamers  of 
the  United  States." 
1856.     Feb.  6  to  Mar.  17,  in  the  Senate.  -  Mar.  20  to  Aug.  4,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  14,  vetoed.  -  Aug.  16,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

31  to  14.  -  Aug.  16,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  127  to  47. 
Senate  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  94,  187  P,  514,  521,  524,  527,  608  O,  609, 
615,  621,  622  R,  626,  629.  -  House  Journal,  i  and  2  sess.  34  Cong.     pp.  703,  843, 
874,  1355,  !356  p,  '373,  1377,  '488,  1492,  H93»  J499  R,  15°°. 


PRESIDENT    BUCHANAN   (1857-1861).  -[7  VETOES.] 

t  43.  Overland  man.     [§21.] 

H.  R.  37,  i  sess.  35  Cong.  "  A  joint  resolution  in  regard  to  the  carrying  of  the  United 
States  mails  from  Saint  Joseph,  Missouri,  to  Placerville,  California." 

1858.  June  10,  in  the  House.  -  June  10  to  June  12,  in  the  Senate. 

1859.  Jan.  7,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  35  Cong.  pp.  1071  P,  1127,  1147.  -  Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 
33  Cong.  pp.  660,  669,  698,  704  P,  705,  707,  708,  710.  -  House  Journal,  a  sess. 
33  Cong.  p.  151  O. 

44.  Land  grants  for  agricultural  colleges.     [§  47.] 

H.  R.  2,  2  sess.  33  Cong.     "  An  act  donating  public  lands  to  the  several  States  and 


150  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

Territories  which  may  provide  colleges  for  the  benefit  of  agriculture  and  the  mechanic 
arts." 

1857.  Dec.  14  to  1858,  Apr.  22,  in  the  House. 1858,  Apr.  22  to  1859,  Feb.  7,  in 

the  Senate. 

1859.  Feb.  24,  vetoed. Feb.  26,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  105-96. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  33  Cong.     pp.  67,  68,  73,  74,  77,  629,  632,  653,  654,  655,  667- 

672,  672  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  35   Cong.     pp.  371,  376,  422,  483,  484. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  35  Cong.     pp.  359,  425-428,  433,  437,  501  O,  508  R. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  35  Cong.     pp.  57,  61,  90,  244-246,  251,  256,  257,  258,  259,  260,  278  P, 
326,  327,  332. 

t  45.  Internal  improvements  (Saint  Clair  Flats) .     [§  90.] 
S.  321,  i  sess.  35  Cong.     "  An  act  making  an  appropriation  for  deepening  the  channel 
over  the  Saint  Clair  Flats,  in  the  State  of  Michigan." 

1858.  May  10  to  Dec.  21,  in  the  Senate. Dec.  22  to  1859,  Mar.  2,  in  the  House. 

1860.  Feb.  i,  veto  message  signed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  35  Cong.     p.  428. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  35  Cong.     pp. 

82  P,  428,  431,  434,  439. House  Journal,  2  sess.  35  Cong.     pp.  107,  219,  547,  548, 

549  P,  559,  563. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  36  Cong.     pp.  114  O,  121,  128. 

t  46.   Internal  improvements  (Mississippi  River).     [§90.] 
S.  Res.  87,  2  sess.  35  Cong.     "  Joint  resolution  in  relation  to  removal  of  obstructions  to 
navigation  in  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  River." 

1859.  Mar.  2,  in  the  Senate. Mar.  2,  in  the  House. 

1860.  Feb.  6,  veto  message  signed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  35  Cong.     pp.  423  P,  428,  431,  434,  439. House  Jour- 
nal, 2  sess.  35  Cong.     pp.  540,  546  P,  559,  563. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  36  Cong. 

p.  129  O. 

47.  Relief  of  A.  Edwards  and  Co.     [§  66.] 

S.  2g,  i  sess.  36  Cong.     "-An  act  for  the  relief  of  Arthur  Edwards  and  his  associates." 

1860.     Jan.  3  to  Mar.  30,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. 

Apr.  17,  vetoed. June  7,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  22-30. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  36  Cong.     pp.  57,  114,  325  P,  374,  376,  377,  380,  406  O,  453, 

580  R,  581. House  Journal,  i  sess.  36  Cong.     pp.  645,  670,  671,  692,  693,  694  P, 

7°3- 

48.  Homestead  Act.     [§  47.] 

S.  416,  i  sess.  36  Cong.     "  An  act  to  secure  homesteads  to  actual  settlers  on  the  public 
domain,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1860.  Apr.  17  to  May  10,  in  the  Senate. May  II  to  May  21,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. June  23,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  28-18. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  36  Cong.     pp.  407,  410,  412,  414,  415,  444,  445,  446,  447,  448, 
449,  450,  454,  456,  457,  458  P,  487,  533,  538,  539,  615,  620,  623,  656,  657,  667,  669,  710, 

711,  716,  719,  723,  747  O,  753,  756  R,  757. House  Journal,  i  sess.  36  Cong.  pp.  823, 

884-888,  888  P,  950,  958,  1056,  1092,  1096,  1154,  1155-1157,  1158,  1163. 

49.  Relief  of  Hockaday  and  Leggit.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  915,  2  sess.  36  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Hockaday  and  Leggit." 

1861.  Jan.  7,  in  the  House. Jan.  loto  Jan.  II,  in  the  Senate. 

Jan.  25,  vetoed. Jan.  26,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  81-67. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  36  Cong.     pp.  148  P,  175,  179,  227  O,  228  R,  229. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  36  Cong.     pp.  86,  89  P,  94,  105. 


1859-1866]        Buchanans  to  Johnsons  Administration.  151 

PRESIDENT    LINCOLN   (1861-1865). -[3  VETOES.] 

50.  Bank  notes  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     [§  60.] 

S.  193,  2  sess.  3?  Cong.  "  An  act  to  repeal  that  part  of  an  act  of  Congress  which 
prohibits  the  circulation  of  bank  notes  of  a  less  denomination  than  five  dollars  in  the 
District  of  Columbia." 

1862.     Feb.  II  to  Apr.  4,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  7  to  June  II,  in  the  House. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  37  Cong.     pp.  191,  373  P,  638,  641,  645,  650,  705  O,  734. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  37  Cong.     pp.  511,  524,  525,  841  P,  860,  864. 

51.  Medical  officers  for  the  army.     [§§  97,  126.] 

S.  343,  2  sess.  37  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  additional  medical  officers  of  the 
volunteer  service." 

1862.     June  9  to  June  II,  in  the  Senate. June  12  to  June  13,  in  the  House. 

July  2,  vetoed. July  2,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  0-37. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  37  Cong.  pp.  620,  623,  633  P,  650,  658,  663,  706,  713,  714, 
746  O  R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  37  Cong.  pp.  844,  857  P,  876,  881,  928,  950. 

t  52.   Correction  of  clerical  errors.     [§§  98,  126.] 

H.  Res.  123,  i  sess.  38  Cong.  "  Joint  resolution  to  correct  certain  clerical  errors  in  the 
internal  revenue  act." 

1864.  July  2,  in  the  House. July  4,  in  the  Senate. 

1865.  Jan.  5,  veto  message  signed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  38   Cong.     p.  1031  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  38  Cong. 

p.  751  P. House  Journal,  2  sess.  38  Cong.     p.  80  O. 

PRESIDENT   JOHNSON   (1865-1869), -[21  VETOES.] 

53.   Freedmen's  Bureau.     [§  34.] 

S.  60,  i  sess.  39  Cong.  "  An  act  to  establish  a  Bureau  for  the  relief  of  Freedmen  and 
Refugees." 

1866.  Jan.  5  to  Jan.  25,  in  the  Senate. Jan.  25  to  Feb.  6,  in  the  House. 

Feb.  19,  vetoed. Feb.  20,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   vote,  30-18. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  62,  72,  77,  78,  86,  88,  92,  94,  95,  97,  98,  99,  100, 

103,  104,  105,  106,  109?,  no,  112,  140,  145,  147,  152,  153,  i68O,  173-176,  179  R. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  188,  189,  207,  213,  218,  225,  233,  235,  240  P,  255, 
256,  266,  268. 

**  54.   Civil  Rights  Act.     [§§  34,  42.] 

S.  61,  i  sess.  39  Cong.  "  An  act  to  protect  all  persons  in  the  United  States  in  their 
civil  rights,  and  furnish  the  means  of  their  vindication." 

1866.     Jan.  5  to  Feb.  2,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  3  to  Mar.  13,  in  the  House. 

Mar.  27,  vetoed. Apr.  6,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate ;  passed  over  the  veto, 

33  to  15. Apr.  9,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  122  to  41. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  62,  72,  78,  HO,  112,  117,  120,  125,  127,  128, 

131,  132  P,  229,  231,  236,  237,  240,  241,  279  O,  285,  306,  313,  317  R,  324. House 

Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  225,  232,  240,  345,  352,  372,  377,  380,  382,  396,  397  P, 
409,  414,  521,  526,  528  R. 

55.   Admission  of  Colorado.     [§  50.] 

S.  74,  i  sess.  39  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Colorado  into  the 
Union." 


152  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1866.     Jan.  12  to  Apr.  25,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  26  to  May  3,  in  the  House. 

May  15,  vetoed. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  76,  90,  212,  225,  227,  229,  230,  233,  352,  358, 

370.  372»  373  P,  374,  39^,  403,  405,  43°  0, 432, 433. House  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong. 

pp.  622,  657,  66 1  P,  668,  672. 

56.   Public  lands  (Montana  Iron  Company).     [§§48,  126.] 

S.  203,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     "  An  act  to  enable  the  New  York  and  Montana  Iron  Mining 

and  Manufacturing  Company  to  purchase  a  certain  amount  of  the  public  lands  not  now 

in  the  market." 

1866.     Mar.  15  to  May  i,  in  the  Senate. May  I  to  June  5,  in  the  House. 

June  15,  vetoed. 
Senate  Journal,  /  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  235,  371,  377,  379,  388  P,  492,  494,  495,  531  O, 

535>  536,  537- House  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  645,  698,  702,  794  P,  799,  824. 

**  57.   Continuation  of  Freedmen's  Bureau.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  613,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     "  An  act  to  continue  in  force,  and  to  amend  '  An  act  to 
establish  a  Bureau  for  the  relief  of  Freedmen  and  Refugees,  and  for  other  purposes.'  " 

1866.     May  22  to  May  29,  in  the  House. May  30  to  June  26,  in  the  Senate. 

July  16,  vetoed. July  16,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

103  to  33. July  16,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  33  to  12. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  737,  741,  744,  746,  770-773  P,  915,  924,  936, 

943,  947,  951,  958,   1024  O,   1028,   1030,  1039  R,  1050. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

39  Cong.    pp.  476,  506,  527,  575,  576  P,  590,  594,  595,  600,  601,  608,  610,  660,  661  R. 

58.    Surveying  district  of  Montana.     [§§  48,  126.] 

H.  R.  466,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     "  An  act  erecting  the  Territory  of  Montana  into  a  survey- 
ing district,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1866.  Apr.  9  to  May  24,  in  the  House. May  24  to  July  16,  in  the  Senate. 

July  28,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  525,  743  P,  1028,  1044,  1051,  1065,  11960,  1197, 
1198. Senate  Journal,  /  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  463,  465,  481,  656  P,  657,  679,  681,  686. 

**  59.   Suffrage  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     [§  34.] 

S.  i,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     "  An  act  to  regulate  the  elective  franchise*  in  the  District  of 
Columbia." 
,1865.     Dec.  4  to  1866,  Dec.  13,  in  the  Senate. 1866,  Dec.  14,  in  the  House. 

1867.  Jan.  5,  vetoed. Jan.  7,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto, 

29  to  10. Jan.  8,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  112-38. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  5,  26,  53,  70,  76,  82,  86,  582,  584. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  28,  29,  31,  32,  35,  36  P,  38,  42,  43,  56,  64  O,  74,  77  R. 
House  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  75,  77  P,  86,  108,  131,  132,  133  R. 

60.   Admission  of  Colorado.     [§  50.] 

S.  462,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     "  An  act  to  admit  the  State  of  Colorado  into  the  Union." 

1866.  Dec.  10  to  1867,  Jan.  9,  in  the  Senate. 1867,  Jan.  10  to  Jan.  15,  in  the  House. 

1867.  Jan.  29,  vetoed. Mar.  i,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  29-19. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  27,  30,  83,  84  P,  104,  106,  107,  no,  154,  157  O, 

162  R,  395,  396. House  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  145,  174,  175,  176  P,  177, 

180,  181,  183. 

**  61.   Admission  of  Nebraska.     [§  50.] 

S.  456,  2  sess.  39  Cong.    "  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Nebraska  into  the 
Union." 


1866-1867]  JoJinsoris  Administration.  153 

1866.  Dec.  5  to  1867,  Jan.  9,  in  the  Senate. 1867,  Jan.  9  to  Jan.  15,  in  the  House. 

1867.  Jan.  29,  vetoed. Feb.  8,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

31  to  9. Feb.  9,  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  103-55. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  19,  22,  26,  39,  43,  46,  50,  51,  53,  56,  74,  75,  78, 

81,  82,  83  P,  84,  101,  105,  106,  107,  no,  163  O,  166  R,  228,  235. House  Journal, 

2  sess.  39  Cong.    pp.  142,  148,  149,  158,  170,  172,  174  P,  180,  181,  183,  353,  354  R. 

**  62.   Tenure  of  Office  Act.     [§§  28,  34.] 

S.  453,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     "  An  act  to  regulate  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices." 

1866.  Dec.  3  to  1867,  Jan.  18,  in  the  Senate. 1867,  Jan.  19  to  Feb.  2,  in  the  House. 

1867.  Mar.  2,  vetoed. Mar.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto- 

35  to  n. Mar.  2,  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  138  to  40. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.  pp.  6,  22,  26,  59,  74,  87,  91,  92,  93,  98,  101,  107, 
ill,  115,  116  P,  198,  216,  266,  267,  302,  303,  304,  306,  307,  315,  412  O,  416,  417,  418, 

419  R,  423. House  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  195,  196,  299,  305,  306,  307,  308, 

310,  311,  312  P,  344,  379,  389,  421,  424,  425,  426,  438,  578,  580  R. 

**  63.  Reconstruction  Act.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  1143,  2  sess.  39  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of 
the  rebel  States." 

1867.     Feb.  6  to  Feb.  13,  in  the  House. Feb.  13  to  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 

Mar.  2,  vetoed. Mar.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  House;    passed  over  the  veto, 

138  to  51. Mar.  2,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  38  to  10. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.  pp.  345,  349,  352,  353,  363,  370,  371,  372,  373,  374, 
375»  376  p»  4i3»  4i8,  419,  420,  421,  422,  423,  424,  433,  435,  436,  442,  443,  444,  457, 471, 

562,  563  O,  563-575  R,  583. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  39  Cong.     pp.  257,  258,  266, 

275,  278-281,  286-294  P,  306,  316,  317,  319,  320,  325,  331,  419,  420,  424  R. 

**  64.   Supplemental  Reconstruction  Act.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  33,  i  sess.  40  Cong.  "  An  act  supplementary  to  an  act  entitled  '  An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States.' " 

1867.     Mar.  n,  in  the  House. Mar.  12  to  Mar.  16,  in  the  Senate. 

Mar.  23,  vetoed. Mar.  23,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

114  to  25. Mar.  23,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  40  to  7. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  35,  36  P,  37,  53,  58,  65,  66,  68,  69,  70,  72,  80, 

98  O,  99,  100,  101,  102  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  31,  32,  34,  40,  41, 

45,  46,  49,  50,  51,  52,  53,  54,  55  P,  59,  60,  64,  66,  67,  68,  73,  87,  88  R. 

**  65.   Supplemental  Reconstruction  Act.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  123,  i  sess.  40  Cong.  "  An  act  supplementary  to  an  act  entitled  '  An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,'  passed  on  the  second  day  Q\ 
March,  1867,  and  an  act  supplementary  thereto,  passed  on  the  twenty-third  day  of 
March,  1867." 

1867.    July  8  to  July  9,  in  the  House. July  9  to  July  n,  in  the  Senate. 

July  19,  vetoed. July  19,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

109  to  25. July  19,  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto,  30  to  6. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  175,  176  P,  190,  194,   199,  202,  206,  207,  210, 

214,  215,  230,  2320,  233,  234,  235,  236,  237,  238,  239  R,  243,  244. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  141,  148,  149  P,  151,  152,  153,  155,  158,  159,  169,  170-177  R. 

**  66.  Joint  resolution  on  reconstruction.     [§  34.] 

H.  Res.  77,  /  sess.  40  Cong.  "  Joint  resolution  to  carry  into  effect  the  several  acts 
providing  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States." 


154  List  of  Vetoes.  [AFP.  A 

1867.  July  13,  in  the  House. July  13  to  July  15,  in  the  Senate. 

July  19,  vetoed. July  19,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto, 

99  to  22. July  19,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  32  to  4. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  208  P,  213,  214,  215,  240  O  R,  243,  244. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  155,  156  P,  158,  159,  170,  178  R. 

**  67.   Amending  Judiciary  Act.     [§  34.] 

S.  213,  2  sess.  40  Cong.  "An  act  to  amend  an  act  entitled  'An  act  to  amend  the 
Judiciary  Act,  passed  the  twenty-fourth  of  September,  seventeen  hundred  and  eighty- 
nine.'  " 

1868.  Jan.  6  to  Mar.  II,  in  the  Senate. Mar.  II  to  Mar.  12,  in  the  House. 

Mar.  25,  vetoed. Mar.  26,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto, 

33  to  9. Mar.  27,  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  115  to  34. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.  pp.  73,  292,  293  P,  300,  304,  308,  347  O,  348,  349, 
350,  352  R,  355. House  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.  pp.  506,  512,  513  P,  516,  582,  584  R. 

**  68.   Admission  of  Arkansas.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  1039,  2  sess.  40  Cong.  "  An  act  to  admit  the  State  of  Arkansas  to  representation 
in  Congress." 

1868.     May  7  to  May  8,  in  the  House. May  12  to  June  i,  in  the  Senate. 

June  20,  vetoed. June  20,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

in  to  31. June  22,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  30  to  7. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  66 1,  663,  664  P,  788,  800,  804,  809,  814,  819, 

829,  898,  900  O,  903  R,  915. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  392,  398,  399, 

424,  428,  430,  431,  434,  435,  438,  439,  440  P,  453,  454,  457,  462,  463,  525,  526,  527,  528, 
532  R,  533- 

**  69.  Admission  of  Southern  States.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  fOj8,  2  sess.  40  Cong.  "  An  act  to  admit  the  States  of  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Louisiana,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida  to  representation  in  Congress." 

1868.     May  ii  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  16  to  June  10,  in  the  Senate. 

June  25,  vetoed. June  25,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto, 

108  to  32. June  25,  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto,  35  to  8. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  676,  683,  686,  687,  688,  689  P,  838,  839,  841, 

848,  853,  931  O,  932  R. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  399,  400,  442,  456, 

458,  467,  471,  472,  473,  474  P,  480,  543,  544  R. 

**  70.  Exclusion  of  electoral  votes  of  unreconstructed  States.     [§  34.] 
S.  Res.  139,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     "  A  resolution  excluding  from  the  electoral  college  the 
votes  of  States  lately  in  rebellion  which  shall  not  have  been  reorganized." 

1868.     June  2  to  July  10,  in  the  Senate. July  n  to  July  20,  in  the  House. 

July  20,  vetoed. July  20,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

45  to  8. July  20,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  134  to  36. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  443,  558,  568,  578,  581,  614,  616,  621,  622, 

623,  624,  625  P,  637,  644,  699  O,  700,  701,  702  R,  703. House  Journal,  2  sess. 

40  Cong.     pp.  1040,  1044,  1046  P,  1116,  1118  R. 

**  71.   Discontinuance  of  Freedmen's  Bureau.     [§  34.] 

S.  567,  2  sess.  40  Cong.  "  An  act  relating  to  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  providing 
for  its  discontinuance." 

1868.     June  24  to  July  n,  in  the  Senate. July  n  to  July  13,  in  the  House. 

July  25,  vetoed. July  25,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto. 

42  to  5. July  25,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  115  to  23. 


1867-1871]         Johnson's  and  Grant's  Administrations.  155 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  539,  558,  634,  635  P,  644,  654,  659,  671,  759  O) 
760  R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  1043,  1057  P,  1074,  1086,  1 194  R. 

72.   Trustees  of  colored  schools  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     [§  34.] 
S.  609,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     "An  act  transferring  the  duties  of  trustees  of  colored  schools 
of  Washington  and  Georgetown." 

1868.  July  10,  in  the  Senate. July  10  to  1869,  Feb.  5,  in  the  House. 

1869.  Feb.  13,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  40   Cong.     pp.  617  P- House  Journal,  2  sess.  40   Cong. 

pp.  1026,  1199,  1200. Senate  Jottrnal,  3  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  211,  220,  257  O,  258. 

House  Jottrnal,  3  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  286  P,  292. 

**  73.  Tariff  on  copper.     [§  53.] 

H.  R.  1460,  2  sess.  40  Cong.    "  An  act  regulating  the  duties  on  imported  copper  and 
copper  ores." 

1868.  July  25  to  Dec.  8,  in  the  House. Dec.  9  to  1869,  Jan.  19,  in  the  Senate. 

1869.  Feb.  22,  vetoed. Feb.  23,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

115  to  56. Feb.  24,  by  the  Senate  ;  passed  over  the  veto,  38  to  12. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  1206,  1213,  1221. House  Journal,  3  sess. 

40  Cong.     pp.   17,  19,  20  P,  184,  257,  299,  304,  418,  422  O,  423  R,  440. Senate 

Journal,  3  sess.  40  Cong.     pp.  II,  16,  49,  108,  114,  115,  119,  120,  121  P,  22O,  221,  326, 
338  R,  340. 

PRESIDENT   GRANT  (1869-1877). -[43  VETOES.] 
*  74.  Relief  of  Rollin  White.     [§  69.] 
S.  273,  i  sess.  41  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Rollin  White." 

1869.  Apr.  9,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  9,  in  the  House. 

1870.  Jan.  n,  vetoed. May  31,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

41  to  13. June  22,  by  the  House;  vote,  12-168. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.   149,   155  P,  163. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

41  Cong.     pp.  216,  237  P,  238. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  31,  82  O,  157, 

288,  735  R,  874. House  Journal,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  886,  1069  R. 

75.  Southern  Union  troops.     [§  97.] 

S.  476,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     "  An  act  to  fix  the  status  of  certain  federal  soldiers  enlisting 
in  the  Union  army  from  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Florida." 

1870.     Feb.  i  to  Mar.  10,  in  the  Senate. Mar.  II  to  July  8,  in  the  House. 

July  14,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  171,  352  P,  1003,  1009, 1021,  10780,  1080. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  456,  701,  1177  P,  1182. 

76.  Relief  of  Charles  Cooper  and  others.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  1395,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Charles  Cooper,  Goshorn  A. 
Jones,  Jerome  Rowley,  William  Hannegan,  and  John  Hannegan." 

1870.  Mar.  I  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  II  to  June  13,  in  the  Senate. 

1871.  Jan.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  41   Cong.     pp.  392,  596  P,  987,  1072,  1107,  1108,  1 1 12. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  479,  482,  739,  794  P,  911,  912. House  Jour- 
nal, 3  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  101  O,  108. 

77.  Relief  of  naval  contractors.     [§  66.] 

S.  R.  92,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     "  A  resolution  for  the  relief  of  certain  contractors  for  the 
construction  of  vessels  of  war  and  steam  machinery." 
1870,    Jan.  10  to  July  8,  in  the  Senate. July  9  to  1871,  Jan.  30,  in  the  House. 


156  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1871.  Feb.  7,  vetoed. Feb.  16,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  30-20. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  76,  136,  141,  640,  1001  P. House  Journal, 

2  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  1187,  1293. Senate  Journal,  j  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  192,  196, 

212,  236  O,  237,  299  R. House  Journal,  3  sess.  41  Cong.     pp.  238  P,  248. 

*  78.  Relief  of  estate  of  Dr.  John  F.  Hanka.     [§  69.] 

H.  R.  1550,  2  sess.  42  Cong.    "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  the  estate  of  Dr.  John  F.  Hanks." 

1872.  Feb.  16,  in  the  House. Feb.  19  to  Mar.  14,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  i,  vetoed. 1873,  Jan.  18,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the 

veto,  126  to  17. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  354  P,  503,  513,  603  O. Senate  Journal, 

2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  255,  376  P,  384. House  Journal,  j  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  202  R, 

203. Senate  Journal,  j  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  179,  182  R. 

79.  Relief  of  J.  T.  Johnson.     [§  69.] 

H.  R.  1867,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  James  T.  Johnson." 

1872.     Mar.  8,  in  the  House. Mar.  8  to  Mar.  19,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  i,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  470  P,  537,  549,  599,  616,  649  O. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  349,  367,  396  P,  410. 

80.  Relief  of  children  of  J.  W.  Baker.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  2041,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  the  children  of  John  W.  Baker, 
deceased." 

1872.     Mar.  19,  in  the  House. Mar.  20  to  Mar.  28,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Joiirnal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  537  P,  602,  618,  639, 681  O. Senate  Journal, 

2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  402,  403,  453  P,  478. 

81.  Pension  to  Abigail  Ryan.     [§  72.] 

S.  805,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Abigail  Ryan." 
1872.     Mar.  14,  in  the  Senate.     Mar.  14  to  Apr.  4,  in  the  House. 
Apr.  15,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  377  P,  494,  501,  514,  546  O,  819. House 

Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  504,  513,  629  P,  640. 

82.  Pension  to  R.  B.  Crawford.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  622,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Richard  B.  Crawford." 

1871.  Dec.  15,  in  the  House. Dec.  18  to  1872,  Mar.  22,  in  the  Senate. 

1872.  Apr.  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  74  P,  557,  618,  632,  663,  665,  685,  722,  728  O. 
Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  54,  413  P,  477,  484,  527,  528,  543. 

**  83.   Pension  to  M.  A.  Montgomery.     [§  72.] 

S.  935,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Ann  Montgomery." 

1872.     Apr.  n,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  n  to  Apr.  24,  in  the  House. 

May  14,  vetoed. May  17,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

44  to  I. June  7,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  101  to  44. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  536  P,  604,  606,  691,  710,  712,  736  O,  772  R, 
981. House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  671,  727,  748  P,  831,  835,  887,  1060  R. 

84.   Relief  of  J.  M.  Best.     [§  70.] 

S.  105,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  J.  Milton  Best." 
1871.     Dec.  14  to  1872,  Apr.  8,  in  the  Senate. 1872,  Apr.  9  to  May  18,  in  the  House. 


1871-1873]  Grant's  Administration.  157 

1872.    June  i,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  47,  509  P,  787,  792,  796,  927  O,  928,  929. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  660,  809,  893,  894  P,  914. 

85.  Relief  of  T.  B.  "Wallace.     [§  70.] 

S.  569,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Thomas  B.  Wallace,  of  Lexington, 
in  the  State  of  Missouri." 

1872.     Feb.  i  to  May  13,  in  the  Senate. May  13  to  May  24,  in  the  House. 

June  7,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  184,  525,  618,  726  P,  840,  846,  849,  864,  985  O, 
986. House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  856,  859,  958,  975  P,  986. 

86.  Relief  of  Edmund  Jussen.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  2291,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Edmund  Jussen." 

1872.  Apr.  15  to  May  18,  in  the  House. May  20  to  Dec.  n,  in  the  Senate. 

1873.  Jan.  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  691,  893  P. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong. 

pp.  790,  792. House  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  63,  130  O. Senate  Journal, 

3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  53  P,  67. 

87.  New  trials  in  Court  of  Claims.     [§  15.] 

H.  R.  630,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  in  relation  to  new  trials  in  the  Court  of  Qaims." 

1871.  Dec.  18  to  1872,  May  14,  in  the  Honse. 1872,  May  15  to  1873,  Jaq.  9,  in 

the  Senate. 
1873.     Jan.  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  80,  865  P. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong. 

pp.  749,  754,  816. House  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  144,  149,  229  O. Senate 

Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  124  P,  131. 

88.  Relief  of  East  Tennessee  University.     [§  70.] 

S.  490,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  the  East  Tennessee  University." 

1872.  Jan.  17  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  10  to  1873,  Jan.  18,  in  the  House. 

1873.  Jan.  29,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.   1 2 1,  122,  518  P. House  Journal,  2  sess. 

42  Cong.     pp.  665,  837. Senate  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  174,  179,  185,  251  O, 

252,  262. House  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  2OO  P,  219. 

89.  Relief  of  James  A.  McCullah.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  2832,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  James  A.  McCullah,  late  col- 
lector of  the  fifth  district  of  Missouri." 

1872.  May  20,  in  the  House. May  20  to  1873,  Jan.  24,  in  the  Senate. 

1873.  Feb.  8,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.    p.  915  P. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.    p.  794. 

House  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  240,  262,  362  O. Senate  Journal,  3  sess. 

42  Cong.      pp.  143,  211  P,  2l6,  222. 

90.  Relief  for  owners  of  salt  works  destroyed  by  war.     [§  70.] 

S.  ibi,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  those  suffering  from  the  destruction 
of  salt  works  near  Manchester,  Kentucky." 

1872.  Feb.  23  to  Apr.  8,  in  the  Senate. 1873,  Jan.  18,  in  the  House. 

1873.  Feb.  n,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  42  Cong.     pp.  274,  51 1  P. Senate  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong. 

pp.  174,  179,  185,  228,  234,  331  O,  332,  334. House  Journal,  3  sess.  42  Cong.    pp. 

200  P,  201,  219,  268. 


158  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

91.  Relief  of  W.  H.  Denniston.     [§  70.] 

H.  R.  1224,  j  sess.  43  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  William  H.  Denniston,  late  an 
acting  second  lieutenant,  Seventieth  New  York  Volunteers." 

1874.     Jan.  1 6,  in  the  House. Jan.  19  to  Mar.  27,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  247,  250  P,  675,  688,  785,  798,  799  O. Sen- 
ate Journal,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  158,  159,  259,  389  P,  400,  405,  462. 

92.  Inflation  of  currency.     [§§  61,  126.] 

S.  6/7,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     "  An  act  to  fix  the  amount  of  United  States  notes  and  the 
circulation  of  national  banks,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1874.     Mar.  23  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  7  to  Apr.  14,  in  the  House. 

Apr.  22,  vetoed. Apr.  28,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  34-30. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  369,  376,  379,  383,  384,  390,  395,  396,  397,  398, 
401,  402,  403,  404,  405,  408,  409,  413,  414,  415,  416,  417,  420,  427,  428,  429,  430,  431, 

432»  433»  434  P>  464*  466,  467,  485  O,  504,  505  R,  510. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

43  Cong.    pp.  734,  745,  800,  801  P,  810. 

93.  Relief  of  Spencer  and  Mead.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  1331,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Jacob  Spencer  and  James  R. 
Mead  for  supplies  furnished  the  Kansas  tribe  of  Indians." 

1874.  Jan.  19  to  Feb.  27,  in  the  House. Mar.  2  to  Apr.  29  in  the  Senate. 

May  12,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  260,  415,  526,  528  P,  848,  880,  885,  918,  962, 
965  O. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  307,  308,  338,  508  P,  519,  563. 

94.  Relief  of  A.  Burtch.     [§  67.] 

H.  R.  4462,  2  sess.  43  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Alexander  Burtch." 

1875.  Jan.  22,  in  the  House. Jan.  22  to  Jan.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Jan.  30,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  234  P,  249,  259,  270,  380  O,  386  O. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  151,  158  P,  168. 

95.  Pension  to  Lewis  Hinely.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  2352,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Lewis  Hinely." 

1874.  Mar.  6  to  Apr.  3,  in  the  House. Apr.  6  to  1875,  Feb.  3,  in  the  Senate. 

1875.  Feb.  12,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  571,  712,  713  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

43  Cong.     pp.  426,  437. House  Journal,  2  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  387,  395,  437,  448, 

476  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  43  Cong.     pp.  156,  199  P,  210,  221. 

96.  Custody  of  Indian  trust  funds.     [§  41.] 

//.  R.  1561,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  transferring  the  custody  of  certain  Indian  trust 
funds  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States." 

1876.  Jan.  25,  in  the  House. Jan.  25  to  Jan.  26,  in  the  Senate. 

Feb.  3,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  264,  265  P,  275,  278,  330  O. Senate  Jour- 
nal, j  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  137,  143  P,  146,  150. 

97.  Relief  of  James  A.  HilL     [§  67.] 

H.  R.  83,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  James  A.  Hill,  of  Lewis  County, 
Missouri." 

1875.  Dec.  14  to  1876,  Feb.  4,  in  the  House. 1876,  Feb.  7  to  Mar.  14,  in  the  Senate. 

1876.  Mar.  27,  vetoed. 


1874-1876]  Grant's  Administration.  159 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  45,  283,  336  P,  589,  597,  675  O,  692. Senate 

Journal,  I  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  175,  176,  277,  308  P,  324. 

**  98.    Relief  of  G.  B.  Tyler  and  R  H.  Luckett.     [§  66.] 
S.  489,  f  sess.  44  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  G.  B.  Tyler  and  E.  H.  Luckett, 
assignees  of  William  T.  Cheatham." 

1876.     Feb.  24,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  25  to  Mar.  17,  in  the  House. 

Mar.  31,  vetoed. May  20,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate ;  passed  over  the  veto, 

46  to  o. May  26,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  181  to  14. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  231  P,  322,  329,  331,  343,  390  O,  391,  392,  440, 

516  R,  533. House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  462,  483,  606  P,  627,  991,  993, 

1014  R. 

99.  Reduction  of  President's  salary.     [§  33.] 

S.  172,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  fixing  the  salary  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States." 

1876.     Jan.  6  to  Mar.  14,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  3  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  House. 

Apr.  1 8,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  76,  243,  309  P,  379,  400,  403,  410,  425,  438  O, 
524. House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  733,  749,  754  P,  760. 

100.  Recording  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     [§  15.] 

H.  R.  1922,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  providing  for  the  recording  of  deeds,  mortgages, 
and  other  conveyances  affecting  real  estate  in  the  District  of  Columbia." 

1876.     Feb.  7  to  Mar.  20,  in  the  House. Mar.  21  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  Senate. 

May  26,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  349,  623  P,  804,  816,  957,  962,  ion  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  329,  331,  412,  426,  427  P,  504,  507,  508. 

101.  Relief  of  M.  W.  Brock.     [§  66.] 

S.  165,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Michael  W.  Brock  of  Meigs  County, 
Tennessee,  late  a  private  in  Company  D,  Tenth  Tennessee  Volunteers." 

1876.     Jan.  5  to  Feb.  14,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  15  to  May  26,  in  the  -House. 

June  9,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  73,  182,  196  P,  197,  533,  546,  549,  557,  584  O, 
585,  606. House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  399,  444,  843,  1017  P,  1045. 

102.  Internal  improvements  (appropriations  for  salaries).     [§  91.] 

S.  692,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  to  amend  chapter  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  of  the 
laws  of  the  second  session  of  the  Forty-third  Congress." 

1876.     Apr.  3,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  4  to  June  10,  in  the  House. 

June  30,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  378  P,  582,  593,  595,  614,  665  O,  666,  667. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  743,  749,  1087  P,  1117. 

**  103.   Relief  of  Nelson  Tiffany.     [§  67.] 

H.  R.  1337,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Nelson  Tiffany." 

1876.     Jan.  18  to  Apr.  29,  in  the  House. May  I  to  June  29,  in  the  Senate. 

July  ii,  vetoed. July  28,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto, 

178  to  I. July  31,  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto,  40  to  o. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  221,  889  P,  1186,  1195,  1225,  12540,  1311, 

1314,  1340,  1345  R,  1361. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.    pp.  473,  474,  597, 

649  P,  653,  657,  763,  768  R,  769. 


i6o  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

104.  Pension  to  E.  J.  Blumer.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  11,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Eliza  Jane  Blumer." 

1875.  Dec-  J4  to  l&7&>  Mar-  3»  in  tne  House. 1876,  Mar.  6  to  June  29,  in  the 

Senate. 

1876.  July  13,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  pp.  39,  460,  508,  509  P,  1185,  1195,  1224,  1263  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  pp.  2715,  281,  398,  645  P,  653,  657. 

105.  Post-office  statutes.     [§  98.] 

H.  R.  2684,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  "An  act  to  amend  sections  3946,  3951,  and  3954  of  the 
Revised  Statutes." 

1876.     Mar.  15  to  June  8,  in  the  House. June  9  to  July  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  20,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  pp.  595,  1068  P,  1213,  1260,  1270,  1275,  1308  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  pp.  577,  581,  641,  677  P,  701,  709,  712. 

106.  Restoration  of  Capt.  E.  S.  Meyer.     [§  68.] 

H.  R.  36,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  "  An  act  to  restore  the  name  of  Edward  S.  Meyer  to  the 
active  list  of  the  Army." 

1875.  Dec.  14  to  1876,  July  12,  in  the  House. 1876,  July  13  to  July  28,  in  the  Senate. 

1876.  Aug.  14,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  41,  1255  P,  1343,  1362,  1368,  1370,  1498  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  703,  708,  761  P,  776,  777. 

107.  Paving  Pennsylvania  Avenue.     [§  45.] 

H.  R.  4085,  i  sess.  44  Cong,  "  An  act  to  repeal  section  five  of '  An  act  authorizing  the 
repavement  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue,'  approved  July  19,  1876." 

1876.     Aug.  8,  in  the  House. Aug.  8  to  Aug.  14,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  15,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  1405  P,  1478,  1481,  1499  O,  1517. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  808,  814,  817,  868  P,  869,  872,  874. 

**  108.   Sale  of  Indian  lands.     [§  41.] 

S.  779,  /  sess.  44  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  sale  of  a  portion  of  the  reservation 
of  the  Confederated  Otoe  and  Missouria,  and  the  Sacs  and  Foxes  of  the  Missouri  tribes 
of  Indians  in  the  States  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska." 

1876.     Apr.  26  to  June  i,  in  the  Senate.- June  i  to  July  12,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  15,  vetoed. Aug.  15,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

36  to  o. Aug.  15,  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  120  to  18. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  460,  542  P,  703,  704,  717,  808,  811,  819,  829, 

864,  8830,  885  R,  892,  893. House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.   1042,   1048, 

1254  P,  1270,  1281,  1310,  1312,  1404,  1413,  1425,  1511  R. 

109.  Relief  of  Major  J.  T.  Turner.     [§§  70,  108.] 

S.jfdi,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Major  Junius  T.  Turner." 

1876.     Mar.  6  to  Mar.  15,  in  the  Senate. Mar.  15  to  Aug.  10,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  15,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  277,  312  P,  816,  827,  829,  864,  885  O,  886. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  595,  598,  1424  P,  1438,  1515. Senate  Journal, 

2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  103,  232. 

110.  Homestead  entries.     [§  48.] 

H.  R.  2041,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  "An  act  to  amend  section  2291  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
of  the  United  States,  in  relation  to  proof  required  in  homestead  entries." 


1876-1877]  Grant's  Administration.  161 

1876.  Feb.  14  to  Mar.  7,  in  the  House. Mar.  8  to  Aug.  9,  in  the  Senate. 

1877.  Jan.  15,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  387,  526  P,  1413. "Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

44  Cong.     pp.  288,  290,  480,  810  P. House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  156,  159, 

164,  200,  249  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  81,  85. 

*  111.   District  of  Columbia  police.     [§  45.] 

H.  R.  4350,  2  sess.  44  Cong.  "  An  act  to  abolish  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the 
Metropolitan  Police  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  to  transfer  its  duties  to  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  District  of  Columbia." 

1877.     Jan.  8,  in  the  House. Jan.  8  to  Jan.  9,  in  the  Senate. 

Jan.  23,  vetoed. Jan.  30,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

159  to  78. Feb.  6,  by  the  Senate;  vote,  33-22. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  177  P,  187,  195,  216,  326  O,  R,  396. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  87,  92  P,  95,  96,  178,  179,  197,  205  R. 

112.  Diplomatic  congratulations.     [§  24.] 

H.  Res.  777  and  if 2,  2  sess.  44  Cong.  "  Joint  resolution  relating  to  congratulations 
from  the  Argentine  Republic,"  and  "  Joint  resolution  in  reference  to  congratulations  from 
the  Republic  of  Pretoria,  South  Africa." 

1876.  Dec.  15,  in  the  House. Dec.  15  to  1877,  Jan.  II,  in  the  Senate. 

1877.  Jan.  26,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  82  P,  206,  218,  241,  328  O. Senate  Journal, 

2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  52,  98  P,  108. 

113.  Muster  of  D.  H.  Kelly.     [§  69.] 

S.  685,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  "  An  act  to  place  the  name  of  Daniel  H.  Kelly  upon  the 
muster  roll  of  Company  F,  Second  Tennessee  Infantry." 

1876.  Apr.  3  to  June  8,  in  the  Senate. June  8  to  1877,  Jan.  16,  in  the  House. 

1877.  Jan.  26,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  377,  575  P. House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong. 

pp.  1070,  1092. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  114,  137,  138,  151,  158  O,  159. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  238  P,  255. 

114.  Desertion  of  Alfred  Rowland.     [§  67.] 

H.  R.  3367,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  "  An  act  to  remove  the  charge  of  desertion  from  the 
military  record  of  Alfred  Rowland." 

1876.     May  4  to  June  30,  in  the  House. July  I  to  1877,  Jan-  3°»  ^n  ti16  Senate. 

i8"7.     Feb.  14,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  915,  1 191  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong. 

pp.  66 1,  667. House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  340,  358,  382,  438  O. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  HO,  172,  173  P,  190. 

115.  Advertising  of  Executive  Departments.      [§  21.] 

H.  R.  3fj}6,  i  sess.  44  Cong.  "  An  act  to  perfect  the  revision  of  the  Statutes  of  the 
United  States." 

1876.  Apr.  19  to  June  I,  in  the  House. June  2  to  1877,  Jan.  12,  in  the  Senate. 

1877.  Feb.  14,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  823,  933,  1003,  1037,  1039  P. Senate  Jour* 

nal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  546,  550. House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  233,  235, 

269,  292,  294,  340,  346,  363,  382,  451  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  92, 

96,  99,  102  P,  149,  151,  170,  193,  194. 


1 62  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

116.  Relief  of  Edward  A.  Leland.     [§  70.] 

S.  691,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Edward  A.  Leland." 

1876.  Apr.  3  to  Aug.  15,  in  the  Senate. Aug.  15  to  1877,  Feb.  16,  in  the  House. 

1877.  Feb.  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  378,  692,  88 1  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

44  Cong.     p.  1509. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  256,  307,  340,  366  O,  367, 

368. House  Journal,  2  sess.  44  Cong.     pp.  157,  460  P,  517. 

PRESIDENT    HAYES   (1877-1881). -[12  VETOES.] 

**  117.   Standard  silver  dollar.     [§§  62,  129.] 

H.  R.  1093,  i  sess.  45  Cong.  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar 
and  to  restore  its  legal  tender  character." 

1877.  Nov.  5,  in  the  House. Nov.  6  to  1878,  Feb.  15,  in  the  Senate. 

1878.  Feb.  28,  vetoed. Feb.  28,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

196  to  73. Feb.  28,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  46  to  19. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  45   Cong.     p.   144  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  45   Cong. 

pp.  46,  78. House  Journal,  2  sess.  45  Cong.     pp.  458,  468,  485,  517,  546  O,  550  R, 

555. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  45   Cong.     pp.  31,  130,   136,   140,  141,  142,  145,  148, 

156,  165,  169,  172,  176,  182,  187,  188,  193,  196,  200,  201,  202,  203,  204,  205,  206,  207, 
208,  209  P,  231,  250,  252  R. 

118.  Special  term  of  courts  in  Mississippi.     [§  15.] 

H.  R.  3072,  2  sess.  45  Cong.  "  An  act  to  authorize  a  special  term  of  the  Circuit  Court 
of  the  United  States  for  the  southern  district  of  Mississippi,  to  be  held  at  Scranton,  in 
Jackson  County." 

1878.     Feb.  5,  in  the  House. Feb.  6  to  Feb.  28,  in  the  Senate. 

Mar.  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  45  Cong.     pp.  368,  369  P,  555,  563,  585,  600  O. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  45  Cong.     pp.  168,  169,  185,  246,  249,  250,  252  P,  253,  260. 

119.  Restricting  Chinese  immigration.     [§§  43,  126.] 

H.  R.  2423,  2  sess.  45  Cong.  "  An  act  to  restrict  the  immigration  of  Chinese  to  the 
United  States." 

1878.  Jan.   14  to  1879,  Jan.  28,  in  the   House. 1879,  Jan.  29  to  Feb.  15,  in  the 

Senate. 

1879.  Mar.  i,  vetoed. Mar.  i,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  110-96. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  45  Cong.     p.  190. House  Journal,  j  sess.  45  Cong.    pp.  176, 

297,  298?,  456,  500,  517,  535,  603  O,  608,  609  R,  610. Senate  Journal,  3  sess. 

45  Cong.    pp.  184,  185,  232,  266,  271,  276,  282,  283,  284,  285  P,  353,  355. 

120.  Army  appropriations.     [§  35.] 

H.  R.  i,  /  sess.  46  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriation  for  the  support  of  the  Army, 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty,  and  for  other 
purposes." 

1879.     Mar.  27  to  Apr.  5,  in  the  House. Apr.  7  to  Apr.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  29,  vetoed. May  i,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  121-110. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  46   Cong.     pp.  31,  33,  34,  36,  38,  40,  41,  42,  43,  44,  45,  46  P, 

198,  208  O,  221  R,  222. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  67,  68,  74,  75,  76,  77, 

79,  80,  83,  85,  86,  88,  90,  93,  95,  97,  98,  99,  100,  103,  104,  105,  106  P,  107. 

121.  Interference  at  elections.     [§  34.] 

H.  R.  1382,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     "  An  act  to  prohibit  military  interference  at  elections." 


1877-1880]          Grant's  and  Hayes's  Administrations.  163 

1879.     May  5  to  May  6,  in  the  House. May  6  to  May  9,  in  the  Senate. 

1879.     May  12,  vetoed. May  13,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  128-97. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  232,  259,  260,  261,  262,  263  P,  277,  278,  291  O, 

295,  297,  298  R,  481,  539. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  125,  127,  131,  133, 

135.  J36  p.  '38. 

122.  Civil  appropriations.     [§  35.] 

H.  R.  2,  i  sess.  46  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  expenses  of  the  government  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eigh- 
teen hundred  and  eighty,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1879.     Apr.  I  to  Apr.  26,  in  the  House. Apr.  28  to  May  20,  in  the  Senate. 

May  29,  vetoed. May  29,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  114-93. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  35,  49,  58,  59,  66,  82,  88,  92,  93,  94,  98,  106, 

176,  186,  187,  192,  194,  195,  198,  200  P,  202,  341,  360,  389,  404,  4100,414  R,  415. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  46   Cong.     pp.   Ill,  123,  137,  138,  140,  142,  145,  147,  149,  150, 
151,  152,  153,  154,  155,  156,  157  P,  158,  165. 

123.  Payment  of  marshals.     [§  35.] 

H.  R.  2252,  i  sess.  46  Cong.  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  certain  judicial 
expenses." 

1879.     June  9  to  June  10,  in  the  House. June  II  to  June  16,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. June  23,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  102-78. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  469,  474,  475  P,  514,  518,  526,  527,  528,  529, 

540,  5490,  553  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  199,  200,  201,  208,  211, 

212,  216  P,  223,  224,  225,  241,  249,  250,  251. 

124.  Relief  of  Major  Collins.     [§  69.]  , 

S.  595,  i  sess.  46  Cong.  "  An  act  to  amend  an  act  for  the  relief  of  Joseph  C.  Collins, 
approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-nine." 

1879.     May  14  to  May  27,  in  the  Senate. May  28  to  June  12,  in  the  House. 

June  27,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  144,  168  P,  204,  210,  222,  274  O,  275. House 

Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  406,  487,  488  P,  505. 

125.  Payment  of  marshals.     [§  35.] 

H.  R.  2382,  i  sess.  46  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriations  to  pay  fees  of  United 
States  marshals  and  their  general  deputies." 

1879.  June  26  to  June  27,  in  the  House. June  27  to  June  28,  in  the  Senate. 

June  30,  vetoed. June  30,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  85-63. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.  pp.  567,  574,  575  P,  585,  588,  591  O,  592  R,  594. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  46  Cong.  pp.  271,  275,  278  P,  279,  280. 

126.  Payment  of  marshals.     [§  35.] 

H.  R.  4924,  2  sess.  46  Cong.  "  An  act  making  appropriations  to  supply  certain  de- 
ficiencies in  the  appropriations  for  the  service  of  the  government  for  the  fiscal  year  end- 
ing June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1880.  Mar.  12  to  Mar.  19,  in  the  House. Mar.  22  to  Apr.  i,  in  the  Senate. 

May  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  46  Cong.  pp.  769,  770,  798,  803,  809,  816,  820  P,  935,  937, 

957,  1047,  1048,  1064,  1075,  1088,  1089,  1095,  1117,  1143,  1154,  1170,  11740. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  46  Cong.  pp.  360,  361,  377,  384,  389,  390,  395  P,  473,  477,  478, 
483,  492,  494,  495,  5°4>  5°5- 


1 64  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

127.  Payment  of  marshals.1     [§§  34,  112.] 

S.  1726,  2  sess.  46  Cong.  "An  act  regulating  the  pay  and  appointment  of  deputy 
marshals." 

1880.     May  6  to  May  21,  in  the  Senate. May  21  to  ,  in  the  House. 

June  15,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  519,  558,  573,  574,  575,  576,  585,  587  P,  588, 

589,  724,  737,  742,  745,  748,  759. Home  Journal,  2  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  1304,  1403, 

1451,  1460,  1486,  1491. 

128.  Refunding  the  national  debt.     [§  59.] 

H.  R.  4592,  2  sess.  46  Cong.  "An  act  to  facilitate  the  refunding  of  the  national 
debt." 

1880.  Feb.  18  to  1881,  Jan.  19,  in  the  House. 1881,  Jan.  20  to  Feb.  18,  in  the 

Senate. 

1881.  Mar.  3,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  520,  680,  822,  1277,  1278. House  Journal, 

3  sess.  46  Cong.     pp.  37,  68,  71,  84,  114,  n  8,  129,  139,  164,  169,  179,  180,  199,  200,  201, 

204,  212  P,  446,  558,  560,  569,  580,  585  O. Senate  Journal,  3  sess.  46  Cong.    pp.  142, 

143,  204,  256,  261,  267,  273,  274,  275,  276,  277,  281,  282,  283  P,  367,  369. 

PRESIDENT  ARTHUR   (!88H885).-[4  VETOES.] 

129.  Chinese  immigration.     [§  43.] 

S.  71,  i  sess.  47  Cong.  "An  act  to  execute  certain  treaty  stipulations  relating  to 
Chinese." 

1881.  Dec.  5  to  1882,  Mar.  9,  in  the  Senate. 1882,  Mar.  10  to  Mar.  23,  in  the 

House. 

1882.  Apr.  4,  vetoed. Apr.  5,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  29-21. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  47  Cong.     pp.  35,  222,  357,  363,  367,  373,  381,  385,  390,  395, 

396,  397  p»  466,  473,  477,  526  O,  527-534,  540,  541  R. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

47  Cong.    pp.  783,  784,  8 1 6,  824,  845,  849,  88 1,  882,  883,  886,  887,  888,  889  P,  890,  900. 

130.  Passengers  by  sea.     [§  82.] 

H.  R.  2744,  i  sess.  47  Cong.     "  An  act  to  regulate  the  carriage  of  passengers  by  sea." 

1882.     Jan.  9  to  Apr.  18,  in  the  House. Apr.  19  to  June  19,  in  the  Senate. 

July  i,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  47  Cong.  pp.  241,  1065  P,  1502,  1518,  1525,  1575  O,  1804. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  47  Cong.  pp.  602,  802,  845  P,  859. 

**  131.  Rivers  and  harbors.     [§  92.] 

H.  R.  6242,  i  sess.  47  Cong.  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  the  construction, 
repair,  and  preservation  of  certain  works  on  rivers  and  harbors,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1882.     June  I  to  June  17,  in  the  House. June  19  to  July  12,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  i,  vetoed. Aug.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto, 

122  to  59. Aug.  2,  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto,  41  to  16. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  47  Cong,  pp.  1389,  1422,  1477,  1479,  1484,  1489,  1490  P,  1491, 
1625,  1634,  1653,  1654,  1655,  1665,  1681,  1689,  1697,  1729,  1734,  1753,  1762,  1788  O, 
1792  R,  1804,  1808. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  47  Cong.  pp.  844,  916,  927,  928,  931, 

937,  938,  939,  946,  947,  95^953,  95$,  957  P.  95$,  939,  97',  973,  980,  992,  993,  994, 
1016,  1023,  1028,  1058,  1059,  1060,  1061  R. 

1  For  the  text  of  the  veto  see  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  No.  53,  p.  438,  49  Cong.  2  sess. 


i88o-i886]          Hayes  s  to  Cleveland's  Administration.  165 

*  132.  Relief  of  Fitz-John  Porter.     [§§  29,  68.] 

H.  R.  1015,  i  sess.  48  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Fitz-John  Porter." 

1883.  Dec.  II  to  1884,  Feb.  I,  in  the  House. 1884,  Feb.  4  to  Mar.  13,  in  the  Senate. 

1884.  July  2,  vetoed. July  2,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto, 

1 68  to  78. July  3,  by  the  Senate;  vote,  27-27. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  48  Cong.     pp.  97,  253,  310,  349,  350,  413,  414,  470,  471  P, 

822,  1207,  1222,  1462,  1466,  1481,  1638  O,   1640  R,  1648. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

48  Cong.     pp.  252,  254,  352,  420,  422,  423  P,  620,  622,  635,  771,  776,  778,  779,  792, 
798,  897,  899  R. 

PRESIDENT  CLEVELAND   (1885-1889). -[301   VETOES.] 

133.   Relief  of  J.  H.  McBlair.     [§  66.] 

S.  193,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  John  Hollins  McBlair." 

1885.  Dec.  8,  to  1886,  Jan.  13,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Jan.  14  to  Feb.  19,  in  the  House. 

1886.  Mar.  10,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  55,  161,  170  P,  322,  333,  342,  404  O,  406. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  363,  370,  423,  633,  713  P,  740. 

*  134.  Settlers'  titles  to  Des  Moines  River  lands.     [§  48.] 

S.  150,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  quiet  the  title  of  settlers  on  the  Des  Moines  River 
lands  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1885.  Dec.  8  to  1886,  Feb.  1 1,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Feb.  12  to  Feb.  24,  in  the  House. 

1886.  Mar.  11,  vetoed. June  29,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto, 

34  to  15. July  I,  by  the  House;  vote,  161-93. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  53,  179,  280  P,  333,  335,  339,  367,  412  O,  415, 

1009,   1016  R,  1036. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  628,  640,  740  P,  754, 

2046,  2059  O,  2061  R,  2062,  2063. 

135.  Bodies  for  dissection.     [§§  45,  126.] 

8.349,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "An  act  for  the  promotion  of  anatomical  science,  and  to 
prevent  the  desecration  of  graves." 

1885.  Dec.  16  to  1886,  Feb.  17,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Feb.  18  to  Apr.  12,  in  the  House. 

1886.  Apr.  26,  vetoed. Apr.  30,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  6-48. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  72,  203,  246,  302  P,  554,  558,  559,  562,  632  O, 
634,  660  R. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  701,  836,  1238  P,  1245. 

136.  Omaha  a  port  of  delivery.     [§  98.] 

S.  141,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  extend  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  June  tenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  eighty,  entitled,  *  An  act  to  amend  the  statutes  in  relation  to  the 
mediate  transportation  of  dutiable  goods,  and  for  other  purposes/  to  the  port  of 
Omaha,  in  the  State  of  Nebraska." 

1885.  Dec.  8  to  1886,  Jan.  7,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Jan.  n  to  Apr.  15,  in  the  House. 

1886.  Apr.  30,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  53,  142  P,  566,  593,  618,  661  O,  662,  663. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  317,  350,  827,  1265  P,  1316. 

137.  Pension  to  Abigail  Smith.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  jo/9,  /  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  increase  the  pension  of  Abigail  Smith." 

1886.     Jan.  7  to  Feb.  12,  in  the  House. Feb.  15  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

May  8,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  297,  561,  635,  636  P,  1340,  1371,  1547  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  287,  565,  601  P,  623,  627. 


1 66  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

138.  Pension  to  Andrew  J.  Hill.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  1471,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  increasing  the  pension  of  Andrew  J.  Hill." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Feb.  12,  in  the  House. Feb.  15  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

May  8,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  215,  553,  635,  636  P,  1339,  1370,  1548  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  287,  499,  599  P,  623,  626. 

139.  Springfield  a  port  of  delivery.     [§  82.] 

S.  1397,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  establish  a  port  of  delivery  at  Springfield,  in  the 
State  of  Massachusetts." 

1886.     Feb.  5  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  Apr.  28,  in  the  House. 

May  17,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  251,  278,  609  P,  647,  669,  685,  7430,  744. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1330,  1352,  1406,  1423  P,  1440. 

140.  Pension  to  Louis  Melcher.     [§  74.] 

S.  2186,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Louis  Melcher." 

1886.     Apr.  20  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  7,  in  the  House. 

May  24,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  581,  603  P,  702,  716,  732,  784  O,  785,  822, 

1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1338,  1355,  1448,  1540,  1543  P, 

1589. 

141.  Pension  to  Edward  Ayres.     [§  74.] 

.S1. 363,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Edward  Ayres." 

1885.  Dec.  10  to  1886,  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Apr.  22  to  May  7,  in  the  House. 

1886.  May  24,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  72,  582,  603  P,  701,  716,  717,  731,  787  O,  788, 

823,  1080,  1 138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1335,  1352,  1447,  1540,  1543  P, 

1588. 

142.  Pension  to  J.  C.  Chandler.     [§  74.] 

S.  1630,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  C.  Chandler." 

1886.     Feb.  24  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  7,  in  the  House. 

May  24,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  331,  519,  597  P,  702,  716,  717,  732,  786  O,  787, 

823,  1080,  1190. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1337,  1354,  1447,  1540, 

1543  P,  1588. 

143.  Pension  to  D.  B.  Branch.     [§  74.] 

S.  837,  J  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Dudley  B.  Branch." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  7,  in  the  House. 

May  24,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.   130,  518,  597  P,  701,  716,  717,  731,  783  O, 

784,   1080,   1190. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1335,  1353,  1447,   1^40, 

1543  P,  1588. 

144.  Pension  to  J.  D.  Ham.     [§  74.] 

S.  1998,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  John  D.  Ham." 

1886.     Mar.  29  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  7,  in  the  House. 

May  25,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  487,  490,  595  P,  702,  716,  717,  732,  805  O,  806, 

1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1337,  1355,  1448,  1540,   1543?, 

1588. 


1886]  Cleveland's  Administration.  167 

145.  Pension  to  D.  W.  Hamilton.     [§  74.] 

S.  1290,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  David  W.  Hamilton." 

1886.     Jan.  29  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  7,  in  the  House. 

May  25,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  224,  565,  603  P,  701,  716,  717,  732,  803  O,  805, 

1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1336,  1354,  1447,  1540,  1543  P, 

1588. 

146.  Pension  to  Mrs.  A.  C.  Owen.     [§  74.] 

S.  1850,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Annie  C.  Owen." 

1886.     Mar.  II  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  14,  in  the  House. 

May  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  411,  552,  603  P,  741,  760,  761,  768,  823  O,  824, 
1184. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1337,  1536,  1610,  1611  P,  1653. 

147.  Pension  to  J.  D.  Haworth.     [§  74.] 

S.  1253,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  J.  D.  Haworth." 

1886.     Jan.  27  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  14,  in  the  House. 

May  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  213,  583,  604  P,  741,  760,  761,  768,  824  O,  825, 

1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1336,  1353,  1535,  1610,  1611  P, 

1653. 

148.  Pension  to  Mrs.  R.  EXdridge.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2145,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Rebecca  Eldridge." 

1886.     Jan.  6  to  Feb.  12,  in  Che  House. Feb.  15  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

May  28,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  254,  567,  634,  636  P,  1338,  1351,  1410,  1541, 

1542,  1607,  1747  O.-« Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  287,  288,  565,  605  P, 

702,  742. 

149.  Pension  to  Mrs.  E.  C.  Bangham.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1582,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Eleanor  C.  Bangham." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Jan.  29,  in  the  House. Feb.  I  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

May  28,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  221,  425,  506,  507  P,  1338,  1351,  1406,  1541, 

1542,  1607,  1747  O. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  229,  230,  479,  600  P, 

702,  742. 

150.  Pension  to  S.  W.  Harden.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1406,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Simmons  W.  Harden." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Feb.  12,  in  the  House. Feb.  15  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

May  28,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  212,  567,  634,  636?,  1338,  1351,  1406,  1541, 

1542,  1607,  1748  O,  2147. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  287,  288,  498,  600  P, 

702,  742. 

151.  Pension  to  M.  Romahn.     [§  74.] 

S.  1441,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  M.  Romahn." 

1886.     Feb.  9  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  14,  in  the  House. 

June  i,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  268,  560,  606  P,  741,  760,  761,  768,  833  O,  834, 
1080,  1138.  House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1337,  1354,  1451,  1610,  1611  P,  1653. 


1 68  List  of  Vetoes.  [Aw.  A 

152.  Pension  to  J.  S.  Williams.     [§  74.] 

S.  789,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  S.  Williams." 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Apr.  22  to  May  21,  in  the  House. 

1886.  June  2,  vetoed. Aug.  4,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  19-15. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  118,  491,  597  P,  782,  807,  808,  813,  845  O,  846, 

1080,  1138,  1281 'R. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.   1335,  1353,  1449,  1678, 

1679  P,  1719. 

153.  Pension  to  J.  E.  O'Shea.     [§§  74,  79.] 

S.  327,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  E.  O'Shea." 

1885.  Dec.  9  to  1886,  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Apr.  22  to  May  21,  in  the  House. 

1886.  June  2,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  67,  582,  603  P,  782,  807,  808,  813,  846  O,  847, 

1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1335,  1352,  1607,  1678,  1679  P, 

1719. 

154.  Pension  to  A.  F.  Stevens.     [§  74.] 

S.  1726,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Augustus  Field  Stevens." 

1886.     Mar.  2  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  21,  in  the  House. 

June  2,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  360,  583,  604  P,  782,  807,  808,  813,  847  O,  848, 
1080,  1139. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1337,  1354,  1578,  1679  P,  1719. 

155.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  D.  Marchand.     [§  74.] 

S.  226,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Margaret  D.  Marchand." 

1885.  Dec.  9  to  1886,  Mar.  19,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Mar.  19  to  May  28,  in  the  House. 

1886.  June  19,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  63,  358,  453  P,  830,  851,  852,  890,  954  O,  955, 

979.  i°75»  I279- House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  988,  1027,  1707,  1749,  1750  P, 

1793- 

*  156.  Pension  to  T.  S.  Hopkins.     [§  76.] 

S.  183,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Thomas  S.  Hopkins,  late  of  Com- 
pany C,  Sixteenth  Maine  Volunteers." 

1885.  Dec.  8  to  1886,  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Apr.  22  to  May  28,  in  the  House. 

1886.  June  19,  vetoed. 1887,  Feb.  23,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over 

the  veto,  55  to  7. Mar.  3,  by  the  House;  vote,  153-95. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  54,  475,  595  P,  830,  851,  852,  890,  955  O,  956, 

979,  1185. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1335,  I352»  l673>  ^749,  ^75°  p»  1793> 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     p.  414  R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong. 

pp.  726,  826  R. 

*  157.   Public  bunding  at  Sioux  City.     [§  93.] 

S.  763,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  at  Sioux  City, 
Iowa." 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Feb.  9,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Feb.  1 1  to  June  5,  in  the  House. 

1886.  June  19,  vetoed. 1887,  Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the 

veto,  38  to  19. Mar.  3,  by  the  House;   vote,  109-72. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  117,  218,  271  P,  855,  856,  879,  887,  898,  959  O, 

960. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  615,  628,  885,  1799  P,  1820,  1837. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49   Cong.     p.   562    R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49   Cong. 

pp.  842,  853  R. 


1 886]  Cleveland's  Administration.  169 

158.  Public  bunding  at  Zanesville.     [§  93.] 

S.  206,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  in 
the  city  of  Zanesville,  Ohio." 

1885.  Dec.  8  to  1886,  Feb.  9,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Feb.  n  to  June  5,  in  the  House. 

1886.  June  19,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  55,  246,  271  P,  855,  856,  879,  887,  898,  957  O, 
959. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  614,  627,  68l,  1799  P,  1820,  1837. 

159.  Pension  to  J.  Hunter.     [§  74.] 

H.  7990,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  Hunter." 

1886.     Jan.  6  to  Mar.  12,  in  the  House. Mar.  15  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  247,  814,  916,  917  P,  1725,  1756,  1856,  1955  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  424,  425,  677,  810,  8n  P,  831,  832. 

160.  Pension  to  John  Taylor.     [§  73.] 

H.  J?.  3826,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  John  Taylor." 

1886.     Jan.  ii  to  Mar.  5,  in  the  House. Mar.  8  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  345,  743,  851,  852  P,  1725,  1756,  1856,  1953  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  393,  396,  692,  8ll  P,  831,  832. 

161.  Pension  to  C.  W.  Tiller.     [§  75.] 

H.  R.  4002,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Carter  W.  Tiller." 

1886.     Jan.  1 8  to  Mar.  5,  in  the  House. Mar.  8  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  19,  vetoed. 1887,  Feb.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  136-115. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  394,  742,  850,  851  P,  1725,  1756,  1856,  1953  O, 

2079,  2102,  2146,  2222. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  393,  396,  692,  811  P, 

831,  832. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  467,  468  R,  469,  470. 

162.  Pension  to  Joel  D.  Monroe.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4038,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Joel  D.  Monroe." 

1886.    Jan.  18  to  Mar.  5,  in  the  House. Mar.  8  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  397,  742,  850,  851  P,  1725,  1756,  1856,  1953  O, 
2397. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  393,  396,  678,  810,  811  P,  831,  832. 

163.  Pension  to  F.  J.  Leese.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3624,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Frederick  J.  Leese." 

1886.    Jan.  ii  to  Mar.  19,  in  the  House. Mar.  22  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  21,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  337,  911,  991,  992  P,  1725,  1756,  1856,  1955  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  458,  459,  678,  810,  8n  P,  831,  832. 

164.  Pension  to  H.  Hippie,  Jr.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6897,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Henry  Hippie,  Jr." 

1886.     Mar.  16  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  21,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  943,  1172,  1206  P,  1726,  1756,  1856,  19540. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  678,  810,  811  P,  831,  832. 

165.  Pension  to  John  W.  Farris.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  6136,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "An  act  granting  an  increase  of  pension  to  John  W. 
Farris." 


170  List  of  Vetoes.  [App.  A 

1886.     Mar.  I  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  21,  vetoed. 1887,  Feb.  22,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  131-74. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  791,   1170,   1206  P,  1726,  1756,  19540,  2225, 

2393,  2409. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  4.9  Cong.     pp.  544,  675,  810  P,  831,  832. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  682  R,  683. 

166.  Pension  to  B.  P.  Hensley.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1707,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Elijah  P.  Hensley." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Mar.  19,  in  the  House. Mar.  22  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  21,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  227,  846,  991,  992  P,  1725,  1756,  1856,  1955  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  458,  459,  686,  810  P,  831,  832. 

167.  Pension  to  Mrs.  E.  Luce.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5997,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Elizabeth  Luce." 

1886.     Mar.  i  to  Mar.  26,  in  the  House. Mar.  29  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. 

June  19,  vetoed. July  26,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  116-124. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  786,  962,  1066,  1067  P,  1726,  1756,  1856,  19560, 
2163,  2222  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  488,  692,  811  P,  831,  832. 

168.  Pension  to  Mrs.  E.  S.  De  Krafft.     [§71.] 

S.  2223,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Elizabeth  S.  De  Krafft." 

1886.     Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  28,  in  the  House. 

June  21,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  591,  604  P,  830,  851,  852,  890,  952  O,  954,  979, 

1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1338,  1355,  1698,  1749,  1750?, 

I793- 

169.  Pension  to  Mrs.  C.  R.  Schenck.     [§  74.] 

S.  1584,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Cornelia  R.  Schenck." 

1886.     Feb.  1 8  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  May  28,  in  the  House. 

June  21,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  311,  582,  603  P,  830,  851,  852,  890,  956  O,  957, 

979,   1080,   1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.   1337,   I354>   I44§»    *749» 

1750?,  1793.  ^ 

170.  Pension  to  Alfred  Denny.     [§  74.] 

S.  1192,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Alfred  Denny." 

1886.     Jan.  21  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Joitrnal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  197,  560,  605  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  974  O,  975, 
1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1336,  1353,  1451,  1797  P,  1837. 

171.  Pension  to  W.  H.  Beck.     [§  74.] 

S.  1400,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Beck." 

1886.     Feb.  5  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  251,  582,  603  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  976  O,  977, 
1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1337,  1354,  1449,  1797  P,  1838. 

172.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  J.  Nottage.     [§  74.] 

S.  2005,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  J.  Nottage." 

1886.     Mar.  30  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. Aug.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  26-19. 


1 886]  Cleveland? s  Administration.  171 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  493,  539,  597  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  973  O,  974, 

1023,  1080,  1127,  I2II,  1264  R. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1337,  1355, 

1452,  1797  P,  1838. 

173.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  Parsons.  [§  74.] 

S.  342,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Marrilla  Parsons,  of  Detroit, 
Michigan." 

1885.  Dec.   10  to  1886,  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the 

House. 

1886.  June  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  72,  584,   604  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  971   O, 
972,  1185. House  Journal,  i  sess.  4g  Cong.     pp.  1335,  1352,  1448,  1797  P,  1837. 

174.  Pension  to  Mrs.  H.  Welch.     [§  74.] 

S.  fjSj,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Harriet  Welch." 

1886.     Feb.  4  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  248,  491,  595  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  975  O,  976, 
1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1336,  1354,  1448,  1797  P,  1837. 

175.  Pension  to  J.  Butler.     [§  74.] 

S.  2025,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  Butler." 

1886.     Apr.  i  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  505,  565,  603  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  972  O,  973, 
1080,  1138. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1337,  1355,  1451,  1797  P,  1838. 

176.  Pension  to  Robert  Holsey.     [§  74.] 

S.  1288,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Robert  Holsey." 

1886.     Jan.  29  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  4,  in  the  House. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  224,  583,  604  P,  855,  879,  887,  898,  977  O,  978, 
1080,  1138.- — House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1336,  1354,  1449,  1797  P,  1837. 

177.  Pension  to  William  Bishop.     [§§  74,  79.] 

H.  R.  6688,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  William  Bishop." 

1886.     Mar.  16  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  934,  1313,   1361,  1362  P,  1710,  1731,  2004  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  675,  793  P,  8 1 6,  817. 

178.  Pension  to  J.  Steward.     [§  71.] 

//.  R.  7979,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Jackson  Steward." 

1886.     Apr.  19  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  17  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1292,  1449,  1611,  1612  P,  1824,  1846,  2005  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  746,  796,  86 1  P,  891,  896. 

179.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  A.  Van  Etten.     [§§  74,  79.] 

//.  R.  6170,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  A.  Van  Etten." 

1886.     Mar.  I  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  17  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  793,  1453,  1611,  1612  P,  1823,  1845,  *997  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  746,  829,  86 1  P,  891,  895. 


172  List  of  Vetoes.  [Arp.  A 

180.  Pension  to  Mrs.  A.  B.  Travers.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6753,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Alice  E.  Travers.'' 

1886.     Mar.  16  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  937,  1448,  1541,  1542  P,  1823,  1845,  *997  O- 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  700,  759,  860  P,  891,  896. 

181.  Pension  to  Philip  Arner.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6266,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Philip  Arner." 

1886.     Mar.  I  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  797,   1171,  1205,  1206  P,  1823,  1845,  J997  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  760,  860  P,  891,  895. 

182.  Pension  to  J.  D.  Cotton.     [§  75.] 

H.  R.  6117,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  Jto  James  D.  Cotton." 

1886.     Mar.  i  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  791,  1261,  1361,  1362  P,  1823,  1845,  199%  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  715,  859  P,  891,  895. 

183.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  A.  Miller.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1816,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Ann  Miller." 

1886.     Jan.  6  to  Mar.  12,  in  the  House. Mar.  15  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  240,  812,  917  P,  1710,  1731,  1998  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  424,  425,  675,  793  P,  816,  817. 

184.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  Anderson.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7436,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  grant  a  pension  to  Mary  Anderson." 

1886.     Mar.  29  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. July  30,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   vote,  120-95. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1086,  1448,  1541,  1542  P,  1824,  1846,  1998  O, 
2328,  2390,  2409  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  700,  759,  860  P,  891,  896. 

185.  Pension  to  D.  T.  Elderkin.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5995,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  David  T.  Elderkin." 

1886.     Mar.  i  to  Mar.  26,  in  the  House. Mar.  29  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  786,  962,  1066,   1067  P,   1710,   1731,  1999  O, 
2225,  2409. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  488,  675,  793  P,  816,  817. 

186.  Pension  to  G.  W.  Guyse.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3205,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  George  W.  Guyse." 

1886.     Jan.  ii  to  Feb.  19,  in  the  House. Feb.  23  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  319,  620,  715,  716  P,  1710,  1731,  2OOO  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  323,  324,  646,  793  P,  816,  817. 

187.  Pension  to  S.  Miller.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7401,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Samuel  Miller." 

1886.     Mar.  29  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 


1 886]  Cleveland's  Administration.  173 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1085,  1410,  1541,  1542  P,  1824,  1846,  2000  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  700,  766,  86 1  P,  891,  896. 

188.  Pension  to  G.  C.  Hawley.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  424,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  pension  Giles  C.  Hawley." 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Feb.  26,  in  the  House. 1886,  Mar.  i  to  May  24,  in  the 

Senate. 

1886.  June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  157,  553,  767  P,  1710,  1731,  2OOO  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  347,  675,  793  P,  816,  817. 

189.  Pension  to  Charles  Schuler.     [§  71.] 

H.  R.  7298,  /  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Charles  Schuler." 

1886.     Mar.  29  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1080,  1261,  1361,  1362  P,  1710,  1731,  2001  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  636,  675,  793  P,  816,  817. 

190.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  S.  Woodson.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7073,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  S.  Woodson." 

1886.     Mar.  22  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1013,  1261,  1361,  1362  P,   1823,   1845,  2O01  O« 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  723,  859  P,  891,  896. 

191.  Pension  to  A.  J.  Wilson.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7108,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Andrew  J.  Wilson." 

1886.     Mar.  22  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. July  29,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  106-86. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1015,  1174,  1206  P,  1823,  1845,  2O01  O>  2O79i 
2392,  2400  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  707,  859  P,  891,  896. 

192.  Pension  to  C.  "West.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7222,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Gallic  West." 

1886.     Mar.  28  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1077,  1361,  1362  P,  1824,  1845,  2002  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  636,  723,  859  P,  891,  896. 

193.  Pension  to  Julia  Connelly.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6257,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Julia  Connelly." 

1886.     Mar.  i  to  Apr.  2,  in  the  House. Apr.  5  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  797,   1033,  1132,   1133  P,  1823,  1845,  2002  O- 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  512,  513,  796,  86l  P,  891,  895. 

194.  Pension  to  B.  Schultz.     [§  71.] 

//.  R.  6774,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Bruno  Schultz." 

1886.     Mar.  16  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  938,   1311,  1361,   1362  P,   1823,   1845,  2O°2  Q 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  715,  859  P,  891,  896. 

195.  Rension  to  Mrs.  L.  C.  Beezely.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.tfd,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Louisa  C,  Beezely." 


174  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Apr.  23  (?),  in  the  House. 1886,  Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the 

Senate. 

1886.  June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  164,  1260,  1360,   1362  P,  1821,   1844,  2002  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  707,  858  P,  891,  895. 

196.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Maria  Hunter.     [§71.] 

H.  R.  7/67,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Mrs.  Maria  Hunter." 

1886.     Mar.  22  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. July  30,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  111-108. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1017,  1173,  1206  P,  1710,  1716,  1736,  2007  O, 

2193,  2222,  2395,  2407  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  647,  790  P, 

816,  817. 

197.  Pension  to  Mrs.  S.  Harbaugh.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6895,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Sarah  Harbaugh." 

1886.     Mar.  16  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  943,  1358,  1541,  1542  P,  1823,  1845,  2O°8  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  700,  766,  861  P,  891,  896. 

198.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Anna  A.  Probert.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7703,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Anna  A.  Probert." 

1886.     Apr.  12  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  17  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1227,  1449,  1611,  1612  P,  1824,  1846,  2003  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  745,  746,  806,  86 1  P,  891,  896. 

199.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  Mcllwain.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7162,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Martha  Mcllwain." 

1886.     Mar.  22  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  17  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1017,  1535,  1611,  1612  P,  1823,  1845,  2003  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  746,  806,  86 1  P,  891,  896. 

200.  Pension  to  Clark  Boon.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  79J/,  /  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  increasing  the  pension  of  Clark  Boon." 

1886.     Apr.  19  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  17  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1290,  1451,  1611,  1612  P,  1824,  1846,  2004  O« 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  746,  806,  86 1  P,  891,  896. 

201.  Pension  to  James  H.  Darling.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7257,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  H.  Darling.** 

1886.     Mar.  29  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1079,  1357,  1541,  1542  P,  1824,  1846,  2004  O, 
2399- Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  700,  759,  860  P,  891,  896. 

202.  Pension  to  Charles  A.  Chase.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6372,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  pension  Charles  A.  Chase." 

1886.     Mar.  i  to  Apr.  16,  in  the  House. Apr.  19  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 


1 886]  Cleveland's  Administration.  175 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  801,  986,  1276, 1277  P,  1823,  1845,  2005  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  577,  578,  753,  860  P,  891,  895. 

203.  Pension  to  H.  Tillman.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  7614,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  an  increase  of  pension  to  Hezekiah 
Tillman." 

1886.     Apr.  5  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1151,  1311,  1362,  1363  P,  1824,  1846,  2006  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  636,  723,  859  P,  891,  896. 

204.  Pension  to  W.  H.  Starr.     [§71.] 

H.  R.  6718,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Starr." 

1886.     Mar.  16  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  935,  1271,  1361,  1362  P,  1823,  1845,  2O°6  O- 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  723,  859  P,  891,  896. 

205.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  Norman.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6192,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Norman." 

1886.     Mar.  I  to  Apr.  2,  in  the  House. Apr.  5  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  794,  963,  1133  P,  1710,  1731,  2006  O,  2147,  2407, 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  512,  513,  676,  793  P,  816,  817. 

206.  Pension  to  Joseph  Tuttle.     [§  75.] 

H.  R.  7109,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Joseph  Tuttle." 

1886.     Mar.  22  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

June  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1015,  1174,  1206  P,  1823,  1845,  *999  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  707,  859  P,  891,  896. 

207.  Pension  to  J.  S.  Kirkpatrick.     [§  74.] 

S.  7797,  /  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  S.  Kirkpatrick." 

1886.     Mar.  8  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  12,  in  the  House. 

June  29,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  394,  583,  604  P,  903,  941,  966,  1024  O,  1025, 
1165. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1337,  1354,  1604,  1870,  1871  P,  1914- 

208.  Pension  to  N.  Parker.     [§  72.] 

S.  1077,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Newcomb  Parker." 

1886.     Jan.  14  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  June  12,  in  the  House. 

June  29,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  173,  565,  603  P,  903,  941,  966,  1025  O,  1026, 
1165. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1336,  1353,  1578,  1870,  1871  P,  1914. 

209.  Pension  to  W.  Boone.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  473,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  Boone.*' 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Mar.  12,  in  the  House. 1886,  Mar.  15  to  May  21,  in  the  Senate. 

1886.  July  2,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1 60,  8 12,  917  P,  1683,  1720,  2085  O.       •*•  Senate 
Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  424,  425,  638,  778  P,  809,  810. 

210.  Pension  to  M.  L.  Bundy.     [§  66.] 

S.  365,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Martin  L.  Bundy ." 


176  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1885.  Dec.  10  to  1886,  May  17,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  May  18  to  June  16,  in  the  House. 

1886.  July  3,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  72,  321,  747  P,  918,  966,  981,  1053  O,  1054. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1651,  1656,  1894,  1903,  1904  P,  1961. 

211.  Pension  to  A.  F.  Loomis.     [*§  72.] 

H.  R.  7018,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Aretus  F.  Loomis." 

1886.     Mar.  22  to  Apr.  16,  in  the  House. Apr.  19  to  June  17,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  ion,  1200,  1277  P,  1919,  1935,  2I11  O- 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  577,  578,  913,  927  P,  949,  950. 

212.  Pension  to  H.  L.  Kyler.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1818,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  H.  L.  Kyler." 

1886.     Jan.  6  to  Apr.  16,  in  the  House. Apr.  19  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  240,  1098,  1276,  1277  P,  1821,  1841,  21 1 1  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  577,  578,  715,  859  P,  879,  888. 

213.  Pension  to  James  T.  Irwin.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3640,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  T.  Irwin." 

1886.     Jan.  ii  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  337,  1410,  1541,  1542  P,  1821, 1842,  2134  O. — ~ 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  699,  700,  759,  860  P,  879,  888. 

214.  Pension  to  Mrs.  R.  V.  Rowley.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5306,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Roxana  V.  Rowley." 

1886.     Feb.  8  to  Mar.  19,  in  the  House. Mar.  22  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  582,  846,  992,  993  P,  1822,  1842,  2135  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  459,  796,  861  P,  879,  888. 

215.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  A.  Jacoby.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3021,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Margaret  A.  Jacoby." 

1886.     Feb.  i  to  Mar.  19,  in  the  House. Mar.  22  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  523,  847,  991,  992  P,  1822,  1842,  2136  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  459,  796,  861  P,  879,  888. 

216.  Pension  to  A.  Morehead.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3304,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  restore  the  name  of  Abner  Morehead  to  the 
pension-roll." 

1886.     Jan.  ii  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  323,  1447,  1541,  1542  P,  1821,  1842,  2137  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  699,  700,  759,  860  P,  879,  888. 

217.  Pension  to  E.  McKay.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4782,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Elizabeth  McKay." 

1886.     Jan.  26  to  Apr.  2,  in  the  House. Apr.  5  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  474,  1034,  1132,  1133  P,  1820,  1832,  1842, 
2138  O. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong,  pp.  511,  513,  708,  862  P,  871,  879,  889. 


1 886]  Cleveland's  Administration.  177 

218.  Pension  to  "William  Dermody.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  fS°St  i  *"s.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  Dermody." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Feb.  19,  in  the  House. Feb.  23  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  217,  619,  715,  716  P,  1821,  1841,  2138  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  323,  324,  796,  861  P,  879,  887. 

219.  Pension  to  W.  H.  Nevil.     [§71.] 

H.  R.  3623,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Nevil." 

1886.     Jan.  II  to  Mar.  26,  in  the  House. Mar.  29  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  337,  911,  1066,  1067  P,  1821,  1842,  2139  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  488,  706,  858  P,  879,  888. 

220.  Pension  to  F.  Deming.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2971,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Francis  Deming." 

1886.     Jan.  7  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  295,  1172,  1205,  1206  P,  1821,  1837,  2I4J  O« 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  752,  860  P,  879,  887. 

**  221.  Pension  to  J.  Romiser.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1039,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  grant  a  pension  to  Joseph  Romiser." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  May  21,  in  the  House. May  24  to  June  17,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. July  16,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto, 

175  to  38. Aug.  3,  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto,  50  to  o. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.   197,   1454,  1679  P,  1919,  1935,  2I43  O.  2192, 

2229  R,  2230,  2529. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  783,  792,  906,  927  P,  949, 

950,  1128,  1129,  1139,  1265  R. 

222.  Pension  to  James  Carroll.     [§  74.} 

H.  R.  4642,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  Carroll." 

1886.     Jan.  26  to  Mar.  5,  in  the  House. Mar.  8  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.      pp.  468,  850,  851   P,    1822,   1842,   2139  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  394,  396,  705,  858  P,  879,  888. 

223.  Pension  to  L.  W.  Scanland.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3043,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Lewis  W.  Scanland." 

1886.     Jan.  7  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  House. Apr.  26  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  298,   1313,  1361,  1363  P,  1821,  1841,  2140  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  635,  636,  723,  859  P,  879,  888. 

224.  Pension  to  Maria  Cunningham.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5414,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Maria  Cunningham." 

1886.     Feb.  8  to  May  7,  in  the  House. May  10  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  586,  1358,  1541,  1542  P,  1822,  1842,  2137  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  700,  759,  860  P,  879,  888. 

225.  Pension  to  R.  H.  Stapleton.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4797,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Robert  H.  Stapleton." 
1886.     Jan.  26  to  Apr.  16,  in  the  House. Apr.  19  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 


i/8  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.A 

1886.     July  6,  vetoed. 

Home  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  475,  963,  1276,  1277  P,  1822,  1842,  2136  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  577,  578,  706,  858  P,  879,  888. 

226.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  Karstetter.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2043,  *  sess'  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  place  Mary  Karstetter  on  the  pension-roll." 

1886.     Jan.  6  to  Apr.  9,  in  the  House. Apr.  12  to  June  17,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  249,  1171,  1206  P,  1919,  1935,  2I35  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  544,  752,  920  P,  949,  950. 

227.  Public  Building  at  Duluth.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  3350,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building 
at  Duluth,  Minnesota." 

1886.     Feb.  ii  to  Apr.  5,  in  the  House. Apr.  6  to  June  17,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  617,  1159  P,  1919,  1935,  2I4°  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  517,  877,  927  P,  949,  950. 

228.  Pension  to  Mrs.  F.  E.  Evans.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4426;  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Fannie  E.  Evans." 

1886.     Jan.  26  to  Feb.  26,  in  the  House. Mar.  I  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  458,  691,  767  P,  1822,  1842,  2134  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  347,  752,  860  P,  879,  888. 

229.  Pension  to  Mrs.  S.  A.  Bradley.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3394,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Sally  Ann  Bradley." 

1886.     Feb.  8  to  Mar.  12,  in  the  House. Mar.  15  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 1887,  Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   vote,  123-122. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  585,  812,  917  P,  1822,  1842,  2121  O,  2295,  2388, 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  425,  705,  858  P,  879,  888. House  Jour- 
nal, 2  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  640,  641,  832  R. 

230.  Pension  to  Mrs.  C.  McCarty.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3603,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Catherine  McCarty." 
1886.     Feb.  15  to  Mar.  5,  in  the  House. — —Mar.  8  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 
July  6,  vetoed. July  16,  reconsidered  in  the  House;  vote,  124-97. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  659,  763,  85i,.852  P,  1822,  1843,  2116  O,  2117, 

2163,  2225,  2228  R. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  394,  396,  705,  858  P, 

879,  889. 

231.  Pension  to  E.  M.  Harrington.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6648,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Edward  M.  Harrington." 

1886.     Mar.  8  to  Apr.  2,  in  the  House. Apr.  5  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  872,  1033,  1132,  1133  P,  1821,  1832,  1843, 
2iii  O. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  512,  513,  708,  857  P,  871,  879,  889. 

232.  Right  of  way  to  railroads  in  Northern  Montana.     [§  41.] 

S.  2281,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  granting  to  railroads  the  right  of  way  through  the 
Indian  reservation  in  Northern  Montana." 

1886.     Apr.  29  to  June  17,  in  the  Senate. June  18  to  June  22,  in  the  House. 

July  7,  vetoed. 


Cleveland's  Administration.  179 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  653,  766,  919  P,  964,  981,  1003,  1059  O,  1062, 
1127. House  Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1917,  1927,  1961  P,  1987. 

233.   Pension  to  Daniel  H.  Ross.     [§  71.] 

H.  R.  524,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Daniel  H.  Ross." 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Mar.  5,  in  the  House. 1886,  Mar.  8  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. 

1886.  July  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.   162,  762,  850,  851  P,  1820,  1832,  1866,  2018, 

2023,  2161  O. Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  393,  396,  707,  857  P,  1004, 

1005. 

**  234.   Public  building  at  Dayton,  Ohio.     [§  93.] 

S.  856,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  in 
the  city  of  Dayton,  Ohio." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  Feb.  9,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  II  to  June  19,  in  the  House. 

July  9,  vetoed. 1887,  Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the 

veto,  39  to  18. Mar.  3,  by  the  House;   passed  over  the  veto,  133  to  64. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.   130,  246,  271   P,  947,  950,  990,  991,  1003, 

1082  O,  1083. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  615,  628/1930  P,  1951,  1994. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  561   R,  580. House  Journal,  2  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  842,  851  R,  852. 

235.  Public  building  at  Asheville,  N.  C.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  3546,  i  sess,  49  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  at  Ashe- 
ville, North  Carolina." 

1886.     Feb.  ii  to  Mar.  4,  in  the  House. Mar.  4  to  June  17,  in  the  Senate. 

July  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  616,  836,  837  P,  1919,  1994,  2178  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  377,  380,  877,  927  P,  990,  991. 

236.  Bridge  across  Lake  Champlain.     [§  98.] 

S.  63,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  highway  bridge 
across  that  part  of  the  waters  of  Lake  Champlain  lying  between  the  towns  of  North 
Hero  and  Alburgh  in  the  State  of  Vermont." 

1885.  Dec.  8  to  1886,  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  Apr.  22  to  July  20,  in  the  House. 

1886.  July  30,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  49,  336,  610  P,  1146,  1156,  1160,  1205  O,  1206. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1329,  1351,  1646,  2280  P,  2308. 

237.  Public  bmlding  at  Springfield,  Mo.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  1391,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building 
at  Springfield,  Missouri." 

1886.     Jan.  5  to  June  7,  in  the  House. June  8  to  July  22,  in  the  Senate. 

July  30,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  212,  68 1,  1828  P,  2308,  2317,  2456  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  871,  876,  1001,  1152  P,  1157. 

238.  Pension  to  W.  H.  Weaver.     [§  74.] 

S.  1421,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Weaver." 

1886.     Feb.  8  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. May  25  to  July  23,  in  the  House. 

July  31,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  z  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  260,  639,  789  P,  1161,  1177,  1178,  1179,  1226  O, 

1228. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  1711,  1717,  1742,  2155,  2231,  2324  P, 

2344. 


180  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

239.  Pension  to  Mrs.  M.  J.  Hagerman.     [§  74.] 

S.  2160,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  J.  Hagerman." 

1886.     Apr.  16  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. May  25  to  July  16,  in  the  House. 

July  31,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  570,  639,  789  P,  1128,  1145,  1147,  12280, 
1229. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1711,  1718,  1743,  2155,  2231  P,  2277. 

240.  Pension  to  Mrs.  J.  Dow.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3363,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Jeannette  Dow." 

1886.     Jan.  II  to  May  28,  in  the  House. June  I  to  July  16,  in  the  Senate. 

July  31,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  326,  1673,  1749,  1750  P,  2228,  2248,  2475  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  830,  832,  962,  1121  P,  1130. 

241.  Pension  to  Mrs.  R.  Barnes.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9106,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Rachel  Barnes." 

1886.     May  24  to  June  18,  in  the  House. June  21  to  July  22,  in  the  Senate. 

July  31,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.   1699,  1921,  1922  P,  2308,  2317,  2482  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  949,  984,  1152?,  1157. 

242.  Pension  to  Duncan  Forbes.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  8336,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  an  increase  of  pension  to  Duncan 
Forbes." 

1886.     May  i  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  17  to  July  22,  in  the  Senate. 

July  31,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.   1454,  1611,  1612  P,  2308,  2317,  2482  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  746,  1002,  1152  P,  1157. 

243.  Pension  to  Mrs.  A.  Kinney.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5389,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Ann  Kinney." 

1886.     Feb.  8  to  June  12,  in  the  House. June  15  to  July  26,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  585,  1522,  1871,  1872  P,  2356,  2378,  2541,  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  907,  908,  1137,  1180  P,  1188,  1193. 

244.  Pension  to  A.  Points.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8556,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Abraham  Points." 

1886.     May  3  to  May  28,  in  the  House. June  I  to  July  26,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1478,  1673,  1749,  1750  P,  2357,  2379,  2540  O. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  830,  832,  1151,  1181  P,  1189,  1194. 

245.  Pension  to  G.  W.  Cutler.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3^51,   i  sess.  49    Cong.      "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  George  W.  Cutler, 
late  a  private  in  Company  B,  Ninth  New  Hampshire  Volunteers." 

1886.     Jan.  ii  to  May  21,  in  the  House. May  24  to  July  26,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  334,  1605,  1678,  1679  P,  2356,  2378,  2541  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  783,  792,  1158,  1181  P,  1 1 88,  1193. 

246.  Pension  to  Susan  Hawes.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7234,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Susan  Hawes." 
1886.     Mar.  29  to  June  12,  in  the  House. June  15  to  July  26,  in  the  Senate. 


i886]  Cleveland's  Administration.  181 

1886.     Aug.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  1078,  1577,  1871  P,  2356,  2379,  2542  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  908,  1151,  1181  P,  1189,  1194. 

247.  Pension  to  A.  C.  Richardson.     [§  75.] 

H.  R.  1584,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Mrs.  Aurelia  C.  Richardson." 

1886.    Jan,  5  to  May  28,  in  the  House. June  i  to  July  26,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  221,  1674,  1749,  1750?,   2356,  2379,  25430. 
Senate  Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  830,  832,  1095,  1180  P,  1189,  1193. 

248.  Pension  to  W.  Dickens.     [§  72.] 

S.  2269,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  Dickens." 

1886.  Apr.  28  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. May  26  to  Dec.  18,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Jan.  19,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  648,  676,  8il  P. House  Journal,   i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1726,  1730,  1893. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  90,  1 1 6,  117, 

121,  176  O. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  121,  122  P. 

249.  Pension  to  B.  Obekiah.     [§  72.] 

S.  2173,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Benjamin  Obekiah." 

1886.  Apr.  19  to  Apr.  21,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  22  to  1887,  Jan.  7,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Jan.  27,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  578,  584,  604  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1337,   1355,  1900. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  126,  148, 

152,  161,  224  O,  225,  230. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  188  P,  248. 

250.  Relief  of  H.  K.  Belding.     [§  66.] 

S.  127,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  H.  K.  Belding." 

1885.  Dec.  8  to  1886,  May  18,  in  the  Senate. May  18  to  1887,  Jan.  7,  in  the  House. 

1887.     Jan.  27,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  52,  330,  756  P. House  Journal,  I  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.   1653,  1656,  2013. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  I2O,  148, 

152,  161,  225  O,  227. House  Journal;  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  182  P,  247. 

251.  Pension  to  Margaret  Dunlap.     [§  74.] 

S.  2167,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Margaret  Dunlap." 

1886.  Apr.  16  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. June  7  to  1887,  Jan.  14,  in  the  House 

1887.  Jan.  31,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.   571,  706,  86l  P. House  Journal,  I  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1824,  1833,  1968. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  158,  172, 

173,  177,  241  O,  242. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  262,  263  P,  310. 

252.  Pension  to  A.  Falconer.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6443,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Alexander  Falconer." 

1886.  Mar.  8  to  May  21,  in  the  House. May  24  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  3,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  863,  1504,  1678,  1679  P. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  783,  793,  1185. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  304,  325, 

485  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  159  P,  178,  184. 

253.  Pension  to  W.  Lynch.     [§  74.] 

//.  R.  6132,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  Lynch." 
1886.     Mar.  i  to  June  18,  in  the  House. June  21  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 


1 82  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1887.     Feb.  3,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  791,  1649,  1921  p- Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  948,  949,  1185. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  304,  325,  486  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  159  P,  178,  184. 

254.  Pension  to  R.  K.  Bennett.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7698,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Robert  K.  Bennett." 

1886.  Apr.  12  to  June  18,  in  the  House. June  21  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1227,  1672,  1921  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  949,  1197. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  304,  325,  502  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  159  P,  178,  184. 

255.  Pension  to  Franklin  Sweet.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  7540,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  increase  the  pension  of  Franklin  Sweet." 

1886.  Apr.  5  to  Dec.  18,  in  the  House. Dec.  20  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1148,  1892. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong. 

pp.  121,  122,  124  P,  304,  325,  501  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  90,  91, 

132,  159  P,  178,  184. 

256.  Pension  to  A.  P.  Griggs.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8834,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Abraham  P.  Griggs." 

1886.  May  17  to  June  18,  in  the  House. June  21  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1628,  1706,  1921  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.    pp.  949,  1213. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  304,  326,  501  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  159  P,  179,  184. 

257.  Pension  to  C.  Stone.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  927,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Cudbert  Stone." 

1885.  Dec.  21  to  1886,  Feb.  26,  in  the  House. 1886,  Mar.  i  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the 

Senate. 
1887.     Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1 78,  682,  767  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     p.  347. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49   Cong.     pp.  304,  325,  500  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  132,  159  P,  178,  184. 

258.  Pension  to  Jesse  Campbell.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  8130,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Jesse  Campbell." 

1886.  Apr.  26  to  July  9,  in  the  House. July  10  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1384,  1743,  2081,  2154  P. Senate  Journal^ 

i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1079,  1083,  1184. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  304, 

325,  502  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  159  P,  179,  184. 

259.  Pension  to  Catharine  Sattler.    [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6832,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Catharine  Sattler." 

1886.  Mar.  1 6  to  June  12,  in  the  House. June  15  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  940,  1453,  1871  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.    pp.  908,  1213. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  304,  325,  503  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  159  P,  178,  184. 


1887]  Cleveland's  Administration.  183 

260.  Pension  to  J.  R.  Baylor.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6825,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  R.  Baylor." 

1886.  Mar.  6  to  June  12,  in  the  House. June  15  to  1887,  Jan.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  940,  1605,  1871,  1872  P. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  908,  1185. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  304,  325, 

504  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  159  P,  178,  184. 

261.  Dependent  Pension  Bill.     [§  77.] 

H.  R.  10457,  2  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  dependent  parents  and  honor- 
ably discharged  soldiers  and  sailors  who  are  now  disabled  and  dependent  upon  their 
own  labor  for  support." 

1887.     Jan.  10  to  Jan.  17,  in  the  House. Jan.  18  to  Jan.  27,  in  the  Senate. 

Feb.  n,  vetoed. Feb.  24,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  175-125. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  202,  293,  294  P,  402,  410,  415,  421,  664,  719, 

720,  567  O,  664,  719  R,  720. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  166,  168,  170, 

218  P,  2^9,  222,  227,  235. 

262.  Texas  seed  bill.     [§  96.] 

H.  R.  10203,  2  sess.  49  Cong.  "  An  act  to  enable  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture  to 
make  a  special  distribution  of  seeds  in  the  drought-stricken  counties  of  Texas,  and 
making  an  appropriation  therefor." 

1886.  Dec.  13  to  1887,  Jan.  29,  in  the  House. 1887,  Jan.  29  to  Feb.  2,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  16,  vetoed. Feb.  17,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  83-159. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  81,  328,  417  P,  467,  479,  634  O,  635  R. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  231,  248  P,  259. 

263.  Pension  to  Charlotte  O'Neal.     [§  74.] 

S.  859,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Charlotte  O'Neal." 

1886.  Jan.  5  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. May  25  to  1887,  Feb.  4,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  19,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  130,  646,  789  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1711,  1716. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  276,  287,  288,  303, 

381  O,  382. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  470,  497,  498  P,  530. 

264.  Pension  to  John  Reed.     [§  75.] 

S.  1626,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  Reed,  senior." 

1886.  Feb.  24  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. May  25  to  1887,  Feb.  4,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  19,  vetoed.  » 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  331,  639,  789  P. House  Journal,  z  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.   1711,  1717,   1891. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  276,287, 

288,  303,  382  O,  384. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  497,  498  P,  530. 

265.  Pension  to  Rachel  Ann  Pierpont.     [§  72.] 

S.  2452,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Rachel  Ann  Pierpont." 

1886.  May  1 8  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. June  7  to  1887,  Feb.  4,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  21,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  752,  862  P. House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong. 

pp.  1825,  1833,  1891. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  275,  287,  288,  303, 

392  O»  393- House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  497,  498  P,  530. 

266.  Pension  to  Jacob  Smith.     [§  72.] 

S.  21 n,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Jacob  Smith." 
1886.    Apr.  12  to  May  24,  in  the  Senate. May  25  to  1887,  Feb.  4,  in  the  House. 


1 84  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1887.    Feb.  21,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  4g  Cong.     pp.  547,  676,  789  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1711,  1718. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  276,  287,  288,  303, 

393  O»  394- House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  337,  497,  498  P,  530. 

267.  Pension  to  J.  D.  Fincher.     [§  74.] 

S.  1768,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  D.  Fincher." 

1886.  Mar.  3  to  June  18,  in  the  Senate. June  21  to  1887,  Feb.  4,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  21,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  371,  639,  939  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.   1937,   1959,  2OI2. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  276,  287, 

288,  303,  394  O,  395. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  497,  498  P,  530. 

268.  Pension  to  Margaret  R.  Jones.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  10082,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  to  increase  the  pension  of  Margaret  R.  Jones." 

1886.  Dec.  13  to  1887,  Jan.  21,  in  the  House. 1887,  Jan.  24  to  Feb.  5,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  75,  256,  341  P,  515,  538,  7130. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  190,  191,  244,  275  P,  296,  300. 

269.  Pension  to  A.  McRobertson.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  7327,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Anthony  McRobertson." 

1886.  Mar.  29  to  June  18,  in  the  House. June  21  to  1887,  Feb.  5,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1082,  1672,  1921  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  948,  949. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  514,  537,  712  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  244,  275  P,  296,  299. 

270.  Pension  to  L.  Burritt.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  8002,  j  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  increase  the  pension  of  Loren  Burritt." 

1886.  Apr.  19  to  May  8,  in  the  House. May  10  to  1887,  Feb.  5,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  1293,  1410,  1541,  1542,  1546,  1547  P. Senate 

Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.     p.  700. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  514,  537, 

7130. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  201,  275  P,  296,  299. 

271.  Relief  of  W.  H.  Morhiser.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  5877,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  William  H.  Morhiser." 

1886.  Feb.  19  to  June  16,  in  the  House. June  18  to  1887,  Feb.  7,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  712,  1903,  1904  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  936,  1094. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  531,  548,  7130. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  283  P,  305,  306. 

272.  Relief  of  John  How.     [§66.] 

H.  R.  7648,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  the  estate  of  the  late  John  How, 
Indian  agent,  and  his  sureties." 

1886.  Apr.  9  to  Dec.  15,  in  the  House. Dec.  15  to  1887,  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  24,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    p.  1202. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.    pp.  99  P, 

540,  562,  725  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  72,  73,  143,  293  P,  311,  312. 

*  273.   Public  building  at  Lynn,  Mass.     [§  93.] 

S.  1162,  j  sess,  49  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  erection  of  a  post-office  building  at  Lynn, 
Massachusetts." 


1887-1888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  185 

1886.  Jan.  20  to  July  22,  in  the  Senate. July  22  to  1887,  Feb.  10,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  25,  vetoed. Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

37  to  15. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  192,  1002,  1152  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  2308,  2311. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  307,  328,  331, 

437  O,  438,  563  R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  4g  Cong.     pp.  95,  552  P,  590,  842. 

274.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Sarah  Hamilton.     [§  74.] 

S.  2045,  f  sess-  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Sarah  Hamilton." 

1886.  Apr.  5  to  May  26,  in  the  Senate. May  26  to  1887,  Feb.  II,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  26,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  513,  676,  8n   P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.   1726,   1730,  2239. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  320,  330, 

334.  339.  448  O,  449. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  574,  575  P,  591. 

275.  Pension  to  Anna  Wright.     [§  72.] 

S.  2210,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Anna  Wright." 

1886.  Apr.  21  to  June  5,  in  the  Senate. June  7  to  1887,  Feb.  n,  in  the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  26,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  I  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  592,  705,  86 1  P. House  Joitrnal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1824,  1833. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  320,  330,  334,  339, 

449  O,  450., House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  490,  574,  575  P,  591. 

276.  Public  building  at  Portsmouth,  Ohio.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  6976,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    "  An  act  to  erect  a  public  building  at  Portsmouth,  Ohio." 

1886.  Mar.  17  to  1887,  Feb.  10,  in  the  House. Feb.  II  to  Feb.  12,  in  the  Senate. 

1887.  Feb.  26,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.    p.  962. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.  pp.  558  P, 

580,  610,  757  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  310,  311,  323  P,  334. 

*  277.  Public  building  at  La  Fayette,  Ind.     [§  93.] 

S.  531,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  at 
La  Fayette,  Indiana." 

1885.     Dec.  14  to  1886,  May  14,  in  the  Senate. 1886,  May  15  to  1887,  Feb.  10,  in 

the  House. 

1887.  Feb.  28,  vetoed. Mar.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

38  to  1 8. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  84,  368,  736  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

49  Cong.     pp.  1616,  1645. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  307,  322,  343,  349, 

356,  480  O,  482,  562  R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  49  Cong.     pp.  433,  552  P,  591,  842, 

859,  866,  868,  873,  874. 

278.  Relief  of  Nathaniel  McKay.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  2477,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.      "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Nathaniel  McKay  and  the 
executors  of  Donald  McKay." 

1888.  Jan.  4  to  Feb.  10,  in  the  House. Feb.  20  to  Mar.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  4,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  147,  391,  748  P,  1274,  1295, 1451  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  344,  345,  505  P,  523,  525. 

279.  Pension  to  Laura  A.  Wright.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  445,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Laura  A.  Wright." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Mar.  2,  in  the  House. Mar.  5  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  Apr.  16,  vetoed. 


1 86  List  of  Vetoes.  [AFP.  A 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  88,  516,  1018  P,  1410,  1651  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  416,  418,  459,  579  P,  598,  603. 

280.  Pension  to  Betsey  Mansfield.     [§§  75,  79.] 

S.  8og,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Betsey  Mansfield." 

1887.  Dec.  1 5  to  1 888,  Feb.  1 6,  in  the  Senate. 1 888,  Feb.  1 7  to  Mar.  30,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Apr.  16,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess,  50  Cong.  pp.  74,  275,  332  P,  568,  598,  603,  610,  665  O,  666, 
1026,  1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  833,  874,  971,  1380  P,  1444. 

281.  Pension  to  Hannah  R.  Langdon.     [§§  74,  79.] 

S.  549,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Hannah  R.  Langdon." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  Mar.  30,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  Apr.  16,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  48, 204,  331  P,  568,  582,  598,  603,  610,  666  O,  668, 
1026,  1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  833,  874,  970,  1381  P,  1443,  1444. 

282.  Relief  of  Major  Daniel  N.  Bash.     [§  66.] 

S.  258,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Major  Daniel  N.  Bash,  paymaster 
United  States  Army." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Mar.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Mar.  22  to  Apr.  3,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Apr.  18,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  36,  258,  515  P,  597,  628,  629,  633,  686  O,  690. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  1293,  I3°5>  I335>  J438  P« 

283.  Pension  to  "William  H.  Brokenshaw.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  418,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Brokenshaw." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Mar.  2,  in  the  House. 1888,  Mar.  5  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  Apr.  21,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,   i  sess.  30   Cong.     pp.  87,  614,  1018  P,   1516,  1727  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  416,  418,  500,  616  P,  646,  647. 

284.  Pension  to  Hannah  C.  De  "Witt.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  823,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Hannah  C.  De  Witt." 

1887.  Dec-  22  to  J888.1  >  in  the  House. 1888,  Mar.  5  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  Apr.  21,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  109,  615,  1018,  1019,  1727  O. Senate  Jour- 
nal, i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  416,  418,  547,  617  P,  646,  647. 

285.  Pension  to  Morris  T.  Mantor.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4633,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Morris  T.  Mantor." 

1888.    Jan.  10  to  Mar.  16,  in  the  House. Mar.  19  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  21,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  327,  883,  1202,  1203  P,  1517,  1728  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  489,  490,  512,  617  P,  646,  647. 

286.  Pension  to  "William  H.  Brimmer.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  J24J,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Brimmer." 

1888.     Jan.  15  to  Mar.  9,  in  the  House. Mar.  12  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  24,  vetoed. 

1  No  further  account  of  the  bill  appears  in  the  House  Journal  until  the  message  vetoing  the  bill  is  read. 
Reference  is,  however,  made  in  the  index  to  S.  451  which  passed  boih  houses  and  was  approved  Mar.  10, 
1888,  which  granted  a  pension  to  the  same  person. 


i888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  187 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  398,   1074,  ino  P,  1517,  17440. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  453,  454,  471,  616  P,  646,  647. 

287.  Pension  to  "William  P.  Witt.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6008,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  P.  Witt." 

1888.     Feb.  8  to  Mar.  9,  in  the  House. Mar.  12  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  24,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  711,  1073,  uio  P,  1517,  1742  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  453,  454,  548,  617  P,  646,  647. 

288.  Pension  to  Chloe  Quiggle.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4550,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Chloe  Quiggle,  widow  of 
Philip  Quiggle." 

1888.    Jan.  10  to  Mar.  16,  in  the  House. Mar.  19^0  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. 

Apr.  24,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  324,  884,  1202,  1203  P,  1517,  1743  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  489,  490,  591,  617  P,  646,  647. 

289.  Pension  to  William  Sackman,  Sr.     [§§  74,  79.] 

S.  465,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  Sackman,  senior." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Apr.  30,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  44,  165,  331  P,  660,  682,  684,  695,  743  O,  745, 

1025,  1026,  1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  833,  874,  1257,  1620  P,  1669. 

290.  Pension  to  Mary  Sullivan.     [§  72.] 

S.  838,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Sullivan." 

1887.  Dec.  15  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate, 1888,  Feb.  17  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Apr.  30,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  75,  240,  331  P,  660,  682,  685,  695,  745  O,  746, 

1026,  1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  833,  875,  1072,  1618,  1619  P,  1669. 

291.  Relief  of  H.  B.  Wilson.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  19,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  H.  B.  Wilson,  administrator  of 
the  estate  of  William  Tinder,  deceased." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Jan.  31,  in  the  House. 1888,  Jan.  31  to  Feb.  13,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  May  i,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  72,  440,  620  P,  772,  1 800  O. Senate  Jour- 
nal, i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  247,  248,  282,  305  P,  719,  720. 

292.  Relief  of  Emily  G.  Mills.     [§§  74,  79.] 

H.  R.  4534,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Emily  G.  Mills." 

1888.     Jan.  10  to  Mar.  16,  in  the  House. Mar.  19  to  Apr.  17,  in  the  Senate. 

May  3,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  324,  884,  I2O2,  1203  P,  1678,  1811  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  489,  490,  635,  678  P,  719,  720. 

293.  Sale  of  Indian  Lands.     [§  41.] 

H.  R.  1406,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     «  An  act  to  provide  for  the  sale  of  certain  New  York 
Indian  lands  in  Kansas." 

1888.    Jan.  4  to  Jan.  26,  in  the  House. Jan.  30  to  Apr.  23,  in  the  Senate. 

May  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  195,  386,  553,  556  P,  1726,  1846  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  227,  228,  441,  468,  520,  705  P,  721,  722. 


1 88  List  of  Vetoes.  [APT.  A 

294.  Public  building  at  AUentown,  Penn.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  4357,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  to  erect  a  public  building  at  AUentown,  Penn- 
sylvania." 

1888.     Jan.  10  to  Feb.  23,  in  the  House. Feb.  24  to  Apr.  24,  in  the  Senate. 

May  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  341,  785,  904  P,  1753,  1862  O,  2065. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  371,  673,  716  P,  736,  737. 

295.  Relief  of  Georgia  A.  Stricklett.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  77/5-,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Georgia  A.  Stricklett." 

1888.     Feb.  25  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  Apr.  24,  in  the  Senate. 

May  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  924,  1253,  1619  P,  1753,  18730. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  66 1,  692,  716  P,  736,  737. 

296.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Theodora  M.  Piatt.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2282,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  to  pension  Mrs.  Theodora  M.  Piatt." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  140,  1194,  1619  P,   1813,  19420. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  661,  710,  758  P,  772,  773. 

297.  Pension  to  Nancy  F.  Jennings.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5545,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Nancy  F.  Jennings."  ' 

1888.     Jan.  20  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  473,   1071,  1619  P,  1814,  19430. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  661,  710,  757  P,  772,  773. 

298.  Use  of  Castle  Island,  Boston  Harbor.     [§  48.] 

H.  Res.  56,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     A  joint  resolution  "  authorizing  the  use  and  improvement 
of  Castle  Island,  in  Boston  Harbor." 

1888.     Jan.  10  to  Feb.  28,  in  the  House. Feb.  29  to  May  I,  in  the  Senate. 

May  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  324,  881,  978?,   1802,  1947  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  397,  401,  693,  750  P,  765,  766,  768. 

299.  Relief  of  L.  J.  Worden.     [§  66.] 

S.  1064,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  L.  J.  Worden." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Apr.  26,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Apr.  27  to  May  2,  in  the  House. 

1888.  May  18,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  101,  486,  730  P,  753,  779,  782,  787,  856  O,  858. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1771,  1801  P,  1843. 

300.  Pension  to  Sally  A.  Randall     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  88,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Sally  A.  Randall." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Apr.  20,  in  the  House. 1888,  Apr.  23  to  May  2,  in  the 

Senate. 

1888.  May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.   74,  1075,   1702  P,  1813,  1944  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  703,  718,  758  P,  772,  773. 

301.  Pension  to  William  H.  Hester.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8164,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  H.  Hester." 


*888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  189 

1886.  Mar.  6  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1054,   1341,  1619  P,  1814,  1934,  1945  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  661,  710,  758  P,  772,  773. 

302.  Pension  to  Royal  J.  Hiar.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  879,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Royal  J.  Hiar." 

1887.  Dec.  22  to  1888,  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. 1888,  Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.   Ill,  1071,  1619?,  1813,  19440. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  661,  700,  757  P,  772,  773. 

303.  Pension  to  Cyrenius  G.  Stryker.     [§  74.]  . 

H.  R.  3234,  f  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Cyrenius  G.  Stryker." 

1888.     Jan.  1 6  to  Apr.  20,  in  the  House. Apr.  23  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50   Cong.     pp.  397,  1152,  1702?,  1813,  19460. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  703,  71,8,  758  P,  772,  773. 

304.  Pension  to  Ellen  Shea.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3379,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Ellen  Shea." 

1888.     Jan.  9  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  262,  1072,  1619  P,  1813,  19460. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  661,  710,  757  P,  772,  773. 

305.  Relief  of  Sarah  R  McCaleb.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6609,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Sarah  E.  McCaleb." 

1888.     Feb.  4  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  656,  1072,  1619  P,  1814,  1947  O. Senate* 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  661,  710,  758  P,  771,  772,  773. 

306.  Pension  to  Farnaren  Ball.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4380,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Farnaren  Ball." 

1888.     Jan.  10  to  Apr.  13,  in  the  House. Apr.  16  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 

May  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  325,  1074,  1618,   1619  P,  1813,  19470. 

Senate  Journal*  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  661,  710,  758  P,  772,  773. 

307.  Relief  of  J.  R  Pilcher.     [§  69.] 

H.  R.  339,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  J.  E.  Pilcher." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Jan.  25,  in  the  House. 1888,  Jan.  25  to  May  10,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  May  26,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  84,  543  P,  1870,  2016  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  213,  792,  804  P,  812,  813,  817. 

308.  Public  building  at  Youngstown,  Ohio.     [§  93.] 

S.  347,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  in 
the  city  of  Youngstown,  Ohio." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Apr.  30,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Apr.  30  to  May  1 1,  in  the  House. 

1888.  May  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  39,  487,  740  P,  8il,  813,  839,  840,  847,  886  O, 
887. House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.    pp.  1786,  1791,  1855,  1876  P,  1923. 


19°  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

309.  Pension  to  Anna  Mertz.     [§§  74,  79.] 

S.  1231,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Anna  Mertz." 

1888.     Jan.  9  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  May  11,  in  the  House. 

May  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  129,  424,  572  P,  811,  839,  840,  847,  887  O,  888, 
1026;  1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  1411,  1426,  1628,  1881  P,  1924. 

310.  Pension  to  David  A.  Servis.     [§§  74,  79.] 

S.  820,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  David  A.  Servis." 

1887.  Dec.  15  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  May  II,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  May  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  74,  240,  331  P,  810,  839,  840,  847,  889  O,  890, 
1026,  1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  833,  875,  1255,  1879,  1881  P,  1923. 

311.  Relief  of  EUsha  Griswold.     [§  74.] 

S.  835,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Elisha  Griswold." 

1887.  Dec.  15  to  1888,  Feb.  1 6,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  1710  May  II,  in  the  House. 

1888.  May  28,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  74,  312,  332  P,  810,  839,  840,  847,  890  O,  891. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  833,  875,  1879,  1881  P,  1923. 

312.  Public  building  at  Columbus,  Qa.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  1215,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  at  Colum- 
bus, Georgia,  and  appropriating  money  therefor." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  Feb.  28,  in  the  House. Feb.  29  to  May  15,  in  the  Senate. 

May  29,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  187,  805,  975,  976  P,  1909,  2025  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  397,  401,  774,  825  P,  846,  85*1. 

313.  Public  building  at  Bar  Harbor,  Me.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  4467,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  at  Bar 
Harbor,  in  Maine." 

1888.     Jan.  10  to  Feb.  28,  in  the  House. Feb.  29  to  May  22,  in  the  Senate. 

June  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.    348,  804,  975  P,  1968,  2069  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  397,  401,  785,  862  P,  873. 

314.  Government  land  purchase  at  Council  Bluffs.     [§  93.] 

H.  R.  1394,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
purchase  additional  ground  for  the  accommodation  of  Government  offices  in  Council 
Bluffs,  Iowa." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  Feb.  23,  in  the  House. Feb.  24  to  May  22,  in  the  Senate. 

June  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  194,  786,  903,  905  P,  1979,  2070  O. Senate 

Joitrnal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  370,  371,  774,  867  P,  873. 

315.  Pension  to  Johanna  Loewinger.     [§§  74,  79.] 

S.  730,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Johanna  Loewinger." 

1887.  Dec.  14  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  May  18,  in  the  House. 

1888.  June  5,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  67,  276,  334  P,  846,  873,  874,  927  O,  928,  1026, 
1053. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  833,  874,  1930  P,  1985. 


1 888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  191 

316.  Relief  of  John  H.  Marion.     [§  66.] 

S.  1772,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  John  H.  Marion." 

1888.     Jan.  30  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  May  28,  in  the  House. 

June  12,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  234,  432,  577  P,  891,  909,  913,  961  O,  962. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1414,  1430,  2012  P,  2039. 

317.  Pension  to  Stephen  Schiedel.     [§  74.] 

S.  1017,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Stephen  Schiedel." 

1887.  Dec.  20  to  1888,  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Apr.  2  to  May  25,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  June  12,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  96,  388,  571  P,  88 1,  896,  898,  960  O,  961. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1411,  1426,  1611,  1996  P,  2017. 

318.  Relief  of  Elijah  Martin.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  5522,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Elijah  Martin." 

1888.     Jan.  20  to  Apr.  20,  in  the  House. Apr.  23  to  June  4,  in  the  Senate. 

June  18,  vetoed. 

Home  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  473,  1075,  1702  P,  2068,  21560. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  703,  783,  917  P,  940,  941,  942. 

319.  Pension  to  Dolly  Blazer.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3959,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Dolly  Blazer." 

1888.     Jan.  9  to  Apr.  27,  in  the  House. Apr.  30  to  June  4,  in  the  Senate. 

June  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  276,  1155,  1773  P,  2068,  21560. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  735,  736,  784,  917  P,  940,  941,  942. 

320.  Pension  to  Elizabeth  Burr.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  488,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Elizabeth  Burr." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Apr.  27,  in  the  House. 1888,  Apr.  30  to  June  4,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  June  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  89,  1155,  1773  P,  2068,  2164  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  735,  736,  784,  917  P,  940,  941,  942. 

321.  Pension  to  Virtue  Smith.     [§  74.] 

S.  JO.J7,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Virtue  Smith." 

1888.     Feb.  13  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  June  i,  in  the  House. 

June  19,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  303,  388,  570  P,  911,  940,  941,  942,  945,  993  O, 
994. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1412,  1427,  1611,  2040  P,  2086. 

322.  Pension  to  Mary  F.  Harkins.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3016,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  F.  Harkins." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  May  n,  in  the  House. May  14  to  June  6,  in  the  Senate. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  168,  1339,  1880  P,  2087,  21930. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  811,  813,  923,  936  P,  945,  953,  954. 

323.  Pension  to  Mary  Minor  Hoxey.     [§  73.] 

H.  'R,  600,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  increasing  the  pension  of  Mary  Minor  Hoxey." 

1887.     Dec.  21  to  1888,  Apr.  27,  in  the  House. 1888,  Apr.  30  to  June  6,  in  the 

Senate. 


1 92  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1888.     June  22,  vetoed. 

./frtttt1  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  93,  1257,  1773  P,  2087,  2193  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  735,  736,  876,  935  P,  945,  953,  954. 

324.  Relief  of  Lieut.  James  G.  W.  Hardy.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8281,  i  sess.  30  Cong.    "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Lieutenant  James  G.  W.  Hardy." 

1888.     Mar.  9  to  May  II,  in  the  House. May  14  to  June  6,  in  the  Senate. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1095,  1 608,  1 880  P,  2088,  2194  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  812,  813,  892,  935  P,  945,  954. 

325.  Pension  to  Ellen  Sexton.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8174,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Ellen  Sexton." 

1888.     Mar.  6  to  May  u,  in  the  House. May  14  to  June  6,  in  the  Senate. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1054,  1 880  P,  2088,  2194  O. Senate  Jour- 
nal, i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  8 1 2,  813,  876,  935  P,  945,  954. 

326.  Pension  to  Charles  Glamann.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  221  j,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Charles  Glamann." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  May  n,  in  the  House. May  14  to  June  6,  in  the  Senate. 

June  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  137,  1260,  1880  P,  2087,  2194  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  81 1,  813,  923,  936  P,  945,  953,  954. 

327.  Pension  to  the  widow  of  John  A.  Turley.     [§  74.] 

S.  843,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  the  widow  of  John  A.  Turley." 

1887.  Dec.  15  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  June  8,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  June  26,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  75,  312,  332  P,  945,  974,  975,  977,  1018  O,  1077. 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  833,  875,  1662,  2102,  2103  P,  2135. 

328.  Relief  of  Joel  B.  Morton.     [§  76.] 

S.  432,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Joel  B.  Morton." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Apr.  2  to  June  15,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  July  5,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  43,  389,  576  P,  980,  1006,  ion,  1017,  1057  O, 
1058. House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1411,  1425,  1697,  2142,  2143  P,  2201. 

329.  Pension  to  Folly  H.  Smith.     [§  74.] 

S.  43,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Polly  H.  Smith." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  June  15,  in  the  House. 

1888.  July  5,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  28,  333  P,  980,  1006,  ion,  1017,  1059  O. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  832,  872,  1028,  2142,  2143  P,  2201. 

330.  Pension  to  Mary  Ann  Dougherty.     [§  76.] 

S.  ij47,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Ann  Dougherty." 

1888.     Jan.  19  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  June  15,  in  the  House. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  187,  440,  577  P,  980,  1006,  IOI2,  1017,  1060  O, 
1062. House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  1412,  1427,  1662,  2142,  2143  P,  2201. 


1 888]  '  Cleveland's  Administration.  193 

331.  Pension  to  Julia  Welch.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  829!,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Julia  Welch." 

1888.     Mar.  9  to  May  25,  in  the  House. May  28  to  June  20,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50   Cong.     pp.   1095,  1252,  1996  P,  2168,  2280  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  882,  885,  978,  995  P,  1007,  ion. 

332.  Pension  to  Mary  Ann  Lang.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7907,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Ann  Lang." 

1888.     Feb.  29  to  May  18,  in  the  House. May  21  to  June  20,  in  the  Senate. 

July  5,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  I  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  978,  1609,   1931  P,  2168,  2281  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  846,  847,  948,  994  P,  1007,  ion. 

333.  Pension  to  William  M.  Campbell,  Jr.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9184,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  M.  Campbell, 
junior." 

1888.     Apr.  3  to  June  8,  in  the  House. June  n  to  June  20,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jjo   Cong.     pp.   1418,  1661,  2103  P,  2168,  2292  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  946,  947,  971,  995  P,  1007,  ion. 

334.  Pension  to  Harriet  E.  Cooper.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8807,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Harriet  E.  Cooper." 

1888.     Mar.  23  to  June  8,  in  the  House. June  n  to  June  20,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.   1297,  1627,  2103  P,  2168,  2293  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  946,  947,  971,  995  P,  1007,  ion. 

335.  Relief  of  Van  Buren  Brown.     [§  74.] 

//.  R.  6431,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Van  Buren  Brown." 

1888.     Jan.  31  to  June  8,  in  the  House. June  n  to  June  20,  in  the  Senate. 

July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  604,   1613,  2103  P,  2168,  2293  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  946,  947,  964,  995  P,  1007,  1010. 

336.  Pension  to  Nathaniel  D.  Chase.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  367,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Nathaniel  D.  Chase." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  June  8,  in  the  House. 1888,  June  11  to  June  20,  in  the 

Senate. 

1888.  July  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  85,   1612,  2103  P,  2167,  2293  O. Senate 

Journal,  I  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  946,  947,  971,  995  P,  1006,  1010. 

337.  Relief  of  Mary  Fitzmorris.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  oj^o,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Mary  Fitzmorris." 

1888.     Apr.  17  to  June  22,  in  the  House. June  25  to  June  30,  in  the  Senate. 

July  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.    pp.  1653,  2192  P,  2254,  2366  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1006,  1008,  1020,  1041  P,  1055,  1057. 

338.  Pension  to  Tobias  Baney.     [§  74.] 

S.  121,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Tobias  Baney." 
1887.     Dec.  12  to  1888,  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  17  to  June  29,  in  the  House. 


194  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1888.     July  16,  vetoed. 

'  Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  30,  313,  332  P,  1037,  IO55»  IO56»  Io67>  IJI3  °> 
1114. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  832,  873,  2079,  2243,  2244  P,  2272. 

339.  Pension  to  Amanda  F.  Deck.     [§  74.] 

S.  470,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Amanda  F.  Deck." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Mar.  29,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Mar.  30  to  June  29,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  July  16,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  44,  350,  559  P,  1036,  1055,  1056,  1067,  1114  O, 
1115. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1378,  1387,  1610,  2243,  2244  P,  2272. 

340.  Pension  to  John  F.  Ballier.     [§  72.]          / 

S.  1613,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "An  act  granting  an  increase  of  pension  to  John  F.  Ballier." 

1888.     Jan.  24  to  Feb.  16,  in  the  Senate. Feb.  17  to  June  29,  in  the  House. 

July  17,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  204,  331  P,  1036,  1055,  1056,  1068,  11240, 
1125. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  834,  876,  2079,  2243,  2244  P,  2273. 

341.  Pension  to  Thomas  Shannon.     [§  74.] 

H.  R. 5913,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Thomas  Shannon." 

1888.     Jan.  24  to  June  15,  in  the  House. June  18  to  June  30,  in  the  Senate. 

July  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50   Cong.     pp.  518,  1664,  2143  P,  2253,  2376  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  981,  982,  1020,  1041  P,  1055,  1057. 

342.  Pension  to  Woodford  M.  Houchin.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9174,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Woodford  M.  Houchin." 

1888.     Apr.  3  to  June  15,  in  the  House. June  18  to  June  30,  in  the  Senate. 

July  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50   Cong.     pp.  1417,  1769,  2143  P,  2254,  2377  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  981,  982,  991,  1040  P,  1055,  1057. 

343.  Pension  to  Theresa  Herbst.     [§  76.] 

H.  R.  8078,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Theresa  Herbst,  widow 
of  John  Herbst,  late  private  Company  G,  One  hundred  and  fortieth  Regiment  of  New 
York  Volunteers." 

1888.     Mar.  5  to  June  15,  in  the  House. June  18  to  June  30,  in  the  Senate. 

July  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1032,  2143  P,  2253,  2377  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  981,  982,  1020,  1041  P,  1055,  1057. 

344.  Pension  to  Bridget  Foley.     [§  74.] 

S.  1447,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Bridget  Foley." 

1888.     Jan.  16  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  July  13,  in  the  House. 

July  26,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  159,  458,  578  P,  II 10,  1 125,  1 126,  1 128,  1 1 86  O, 
1187. House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  1412,  1427,  1662,  2345  P,  2379. 

345.  Right  of  way  for  a  railroad  through  Indian  Lands.     [§  41.] 

S.  2644,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  granting  the  right  of  way  to  the  Fort  Smith,  Paris, 
and  Dardanelle  Railway  Company,  to  construct  and  operate  a  railroad,  telegraph,  and 
telephone  line  from  Fort  Smith,  Arkansas,  through  the  Indian  Territory,  to  or  near 
Baxter  Springs,  in  the  State  of  Kansas." 


i888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  195 

1888.     Apr.  9  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. May  4  to  July  10,  in  the  House. 

July  26,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  627,  726,  760  P,  1091,  1093,  IIO2,  1103,  1105, 
1187  O,  1193. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1825,  2311  P,  2334,  2341. 

346.  Relief  of  P.  A.  Leatherbury.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  3008,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  P.  A.  Leatherbury." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  May  2,  in  the  House. May  3  to  July  19,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  3,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  I  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.   167,  701,   1804  P,  2413,  2542  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  762,  763,  928,  1134  P,  1143. 

347.  Land  grant  to  Tacoma,  W.  T.     [§  48.] 

S.  2870,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  the  use  of  certain  lands  in  Pierce  County, 
Washington  Territory,  to  the  city  of  Tacoma,  for  the  purpose  of  a  public  park." 

1888.     Feb.  6  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  2  to  July  24,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  7,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  270,  451,  581  P,  1172,  1181,  1182,  1193,  I25J  O> 
1253,  1322. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1414,  1430,  1689,  2454  P,  2470. 

348.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Anna  Butterfield.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8761,  j  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Anna  Butterfield." 

1888.     Mar.  21  to  June  I,  in  the  House. June  4  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1263,  1 612,  2041  P,  2473,  2560  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  912,  915,  1052,  1176  P,  I2II,  1213. 

349.  Pension  to  Eliza  Smith.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2140,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.      "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Eliza  Smith." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.   134,  2160,  2243  P,  2472,  2561  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1106,  1176  P,  121 1,  1212. 

350.  Pension  to  Stephen  A.  Seavey.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7510,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Stephen  A.  Seavey." 

1888.     Feb.  20  to  July  13,  in  the  House. July  16  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  843,  1338,  2345  P,  2473,  2562  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  i  no,  nil,  1142,  1177  P,  1203,  1204. 

351.  Pension  to  Sarah  A.  Corson.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6307,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Sarah  A.  Corson." 

1888.     Jan.  30  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  577,  2123,  2244  P,  2473,  2562  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1090,  1176  P,  1211,  1212. 

352.  Pension  to  Manuel  Garcia.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  3521,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Manuel  Garcia." 

1888.     Jan.  9  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  9,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  260,  2123,  2243  P,  2472,  2563  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1053,  1176  P,  1211,  1212. 


196  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

353.  Pension  to  Rachel  Barnes.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  149,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Rachel  Barnes." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  June  29,  in  the  House. 1888,  June  30  to  July  25,  in  the 

Senate. 

1888.  Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  77,   1736,  2243  P,  2472,  25^2  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1053,  1176  P,  121 1,  1212. 

354.  Pension  to  Sallie  T.  Ward.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  8574,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Sallie  T.  Ward,  widow  of 
the  late  W.  T.  Ward." 

1888.     Mar.  16  to  July  13,  in  the  House. July  16  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,    i  sess.  jo  Cong:     pp.  1187,  1340,  2345  P,  2473,  2572  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess. 30  Cong.     pp.  mo,  mi,  1138,  1177  P,  1211,  1213. 

355.  Pension  to  George  W.  Pitner.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  490,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  George  W.  Pitner." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  June  29,  in  the  House. 1888,  June  30  to  July  25,  in  the 

Senate. 

1888.  Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  z  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  89,  2244  P,  2472,  2573  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1090,  1176  P,  1211,  1212. 

356.  Pension  to  Lydia  A.  Heiny.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9034,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Lydia  A.  Heiny." 

1888.     Mar.  30  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1367,  1894,  2243  P,  2473,  2574  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  Ilo6>  II7°  p»  I2II>  I2I3- 

357.  Pension  to  William  P.  Riddle.     [§  76.] 

H.  R.  9183,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  P.  Riddle." 

1888.     Apr.  3  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1418,  2161,  2244  P,  2473,  2575  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1053,  1176  P,  1211,  1213. 

358.  Pension  to  Bernard  Carlin.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  2233,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Bernard  Carlin." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  June  8,  in  the  House. June  II  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  ses's.  jo  Cong.     pp.  138,  1696,  2104  P,  2472,  25760. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  946,  1036,  1175  P,  1211,  1212. 

359.  Relief  of  Edson  Saxberry.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6193,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Edson  Saxberry." 

1888.     Jan.  30  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  573,  2196,  2243  P,  2473,  2576  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1079,  1176  P,  I2II,  1212. 

360.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Caroline  G.  Seyfforth.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9126,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Caroline  G.  Seyfforth." 


Cleveland's  Administration.  197 

1888.     Apr.  2  to  June  30,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1393,  2161,  2244  P,  2473,  2575  O. Senate 

Journal,  /  sess. 30  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1052,  1176  P,  I2II,  1213. 

361.  Pension  to  James  C.  "White.     [§  76.] 

//.  R.  9344,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  C.  White." 

1888.     Apr.  4  to  June  29,  in  the  House. June  30  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Aug.  10,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1582,  2160,  2243  P,  2473,  2574  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1037,  1053,  1176  P,  I2II,  1213. 

362.  Additional  copies  of  the  U.  S.  map  for  1886.     [§  98.] 

S.  Res.  77,  /  sess.  30  Cong.  Joint  resolution  providing  for  the  printing  of  additional 
copies  of  the  United  States  map  of  the  edition  of  1886,  prepared  by  the  Commissioner 
of  Public  Lands. 

1887.  Dec.  15  to  1888,  Feb.  7,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Feb.  14  to  July  28,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Aug.  14,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  76,  277  P,  1206,  1232,  1235,  1284  O,  1285. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  792,  2494  P. 

363.  Pension  to  Mary  Curtin.     [§  74.] 

S.  2653,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Curtin." 

1888.     Apr.  10  to  Apr.  17,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  18  to  July  27,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  14,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  635,  679  P,  1202,  1223,  1230,  1233,  1285  Of 
1286. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1677,  1687,  1895,  2487,  2488  P,  2516. 

364.  Pension  to  the  widow  of  John  Leary.     [§  74.] 

S.  ioj6,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  the  widow  of  John  Leary, 
deceased." 

1887.  Dec.  22  to  1888,  May  2,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  May  3  to  July  27,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Aug.  14,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  105,  390,  671,  756  P,  1202,  1223,  1229,  1233, 

1286  O,  1288. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1814,  1821,  1898,  2487,  2488  P, 

25I7- 

365.  Pension  to  Benjamin  A.  Burtram.     [§  74.] 

S.  1762,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Benjamin  A.  Burtram." 

1888.     Jan.  30  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate. Apr.  4  to  July  27,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  14,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  233,  548,  615  P,  I2O2,  1223,  1229,  1233,  1288  O, 
1289. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  1518,  1599,  1895,  24%7>  2488  P,  2516. 

366.  Relief  of  P.  E.  Parker.     [§  66.] 

S.  3038,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  P.  E.  Parker." 

1888.     May  28  to  Aug.  i,  in  the  Senate. Aug.  I  to  Aug.  2,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  882,  1108,  1222  P,  1232,  1264,  1265,  1269,  1326  O, 
1328. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  2518,  2521  P,  2564. 

367.  Pension  to  James  E.  Kabler.     [§  74.] 

S.  2616,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  James  E.  Kabler." 
1888.    Apr.  6  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate. May  3  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. 


198  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1888.     Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  613,  709,  756  P,  1245,  1264,  1265,  1269,  1328  O 
1329-  -  House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1815,  1822,  1965,  2534,  2535  P,  2564. 

368.   Pension  to  Sarah  C.  Anderson.     [§  74.] 

S.  2370,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Sarah  C.  Anderson  and  chil- 
dren under  sixteen  years  of  age." 
1888.     Mar.  14  to  May  2,  in  the  Senate.  -  May  3  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. 

Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  466,  671,  756  P,  1244,  1264,  1265,  1269,  1329  O, 
House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1815,  1822,  1978,  2534,  2535  P,  2564. 


369.  Pension  to  David  H.  Lutman.     [§  74.] 

5.  2206,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  David  H.  Lutman." 
1888.     Mar.  I  to  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate.  -  Apr.  4  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. 
Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  406,  499,  615  P,  1244,  1264,  1265,  1269,  1330  O, 
1331.  -  House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1518,  1600,  1898,  2534,  2535  P,  2564. 

370.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Margaret  B.  Todd.     [§  74.] 

S.  645,  /  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Margaret  B.  Todd." 

1887.  Dec.  13  to  1888,  Apr.  6,  in  the  Senate.  -  1888,  Apr.  4  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  6l,  585,  616  P,  1244,  1264,  1265,  1268,  1331  O, 
I332-  -  House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1517,  1599,  2286,  2535,  2536  P,  2563. 

371.  Pension  to  John  W.  Reynolds.     [§  74.] 

S.  1542,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  W.  Reynolds." 
1888.     Jan.  19  to  Mar.  31,  in  the  Senate.  -  Apr.  2  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. 
Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  187,  425,  577,  578  P,  1244,  1264,  1265,  1269, 
I332  O>  J333-  -  Home  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1412,  1427,  1978,  2534,  2535  P, 
2563. 

372.  Relief  of  W.  S.  Carpenter.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  2088,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  W.  S.  Carpenter." 
1888.     Jan.  4  to  May  15,  in  the  House.  -  May  16  to  Aug.  7,  in  the  Senate. 
Aug.  22,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  132,  1258,  1910  P,  2551,  2642  O.  -  Senate 
Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  830,  831,  964,  1250  P,  1261,  1262. 

373.  Relief  of  Clement  A.  Lounsberry.     [§  70.] 

H.  R.  2524,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Clement  A.  Lounsberry." 
1888.     Jan.  4  to  May  17,  in  the  House.  -  -May  21  to  Aug.  10,  in  the  Senate. 
Aug.  27,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  149,  1665,  1924  P,  2584,  2683  O.  -  Senate 
Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  846,  1127,  1271  P,  1281,  1282. 

374.  Public  bunding  at  Sioux  City,  Iowa.     [§  93.] 

S.  288,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  for  the  erection  of  a  public  building  at  Sioux  City, 
Iowa." 

1887.  Dec.  12  to  1888,  Mar.  29,  in  the  Senate.  -  1888,  Mar.  30  to  July  30,  in  the 

House. 

1888.  Aug.  27,  vetoed. 


1 888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  199 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  37,  360,  561  P,  1210,  1214,  1232,  1264,  1270, 

1290,  1291,  1303,  1354  O,  1356. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.  pp.  1379,  1388, 

1660,  2500  P,  2514,  2564,  2567,  2597. 

375.  Pension  to  John  S.  Bryant.  [§  74.] 

H.  R.  jfjj,  /  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  S.  Bryant." 

1888.     Jan.  1 6  to  July  20,  in  the  House. July  23  to  Aug.  15,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  i,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  394,   1795,  2419  P,  2599,  2712  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1150,  1169,  1294  P,  1303,  1306. 

376.  Pension  to  Edwin  J.  Godfrey.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9363,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Edwin  J.  Godfrey." 

1888.     Apr.  13  to  July  20,  in  the  House. July  23  to  Aug.  15,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  i,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50   Cong.     pp.  1589,  1735,  2419  P,  2599,  2712  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1150,  1169,  1294  P,  1303,  1306. 

377.  Pension  to  Russell  L.  Doane.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2507,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Russell  L.  Doane,  of 
Peck,  Sanilac  County,  Michigan." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  July  27,  in  the  House. July  28  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  148,  1896,  2487  P,  2637,  27360. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1206,  1207,  1220,  1316  P,  1342,  1343. 

378.  Pension  to  John  Dean.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9372,  i  sess. 50  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  Dean." 

1888.     Apr.  13  to  Aug.  10,  in  the  House. Aug.  13  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1590,  22 1 6,  2579  P,  2638,  2740  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1274,  1279,  1301,  1317  P,  1342,  1344. 

379.  Pension  to  C.  T.  Maphet.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2 17,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  C.  T.  Maphet." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  July  6,  in  the  House. 1888,  July  9  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

1888.  Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  79,  2184,  2290  P,  2637,  2741   O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1074,  1247,  1317  P,  1342,  1343. 

380.  Pension  to  Charles  Walster.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5503,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Charles  Walster." 

1888.     Jan.  19  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. Aug.  6  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  465,  21 60,  2536  P,  2637,  2741  O. Senate 

Journal,  I  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1245,  1263,  1317  P,  1342,  1344. 

381.  Pension  to  Catherine  Bussey.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  333,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Catherine  Bussey." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  July  27,  in  the  House. 1888,  July  28  to  Aug.  21,  in  the 

Senate. 

1888.  Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  83,  2487  P,  2637,  2741  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1206,  1207,  1247,  1317  P,  1342,  1343. 


200  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

382.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Jane  Potts.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5525,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Jane  Potts." 

1888.     Jan.  20  to  Aug.  10,  in  the  House. Aug.  13  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  473,  2417,  2579  P,  2637,  2742  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1274,  1279,  1301,  1317  P,  1342,  1344. 

383.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Catherine  Reed.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  77/7,  /  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Catherine  Reed." 

1888.     Feb.  25  to  July  27,  in  the  House. July  28  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  924,  2487,  2488  P,  2637,  2742,  2743  O. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1206,  1207,  1220,  1316  P,  1342,  1344. 

384.  Pension  to  Jacob  Newhard.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4855,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Jacob  Newhard." 

1888.     Jan.  13  to  Aug.  3,  in  the  House. Aug.  6  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  7,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  379,  2535,  2536  P,  2637,  27430. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1245,  1277,  1317  P,  1342,  1344. 

385.  Pension  to  Jesse  M.  Stilwell.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6371,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Jesse  M.  Stilwell." 

1888.     Jan.  31  to  July  20,  in  the  House. July  23  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  13,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  601,  2065,  2419  P,  2639,  2776  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1150,  1255,  1316  P,  1325,  1362. 

386.  Land  grant  to  Kansas.     [§  48.] 

H.  Res.  14,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.    "  Joint  resolution  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  certify  lands  to  the  State  of  Kansas  for  the  benefit  of  agriculture  and  the  mechanic  arts." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  July  24,  in  the  House. July  26  to  Aug.  31,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  24,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  197,  2455  P,  2709,  2828  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1181,  1185,  1216,  1371  P,  1377. 

387.  Sale  of  military  reservation  in  Kansas.     [§  48.] 

H.  R.  8310,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  to  provide  for  the  disposal  of  the  Fort  Wallace 
military  reservation  in  Kansas." 

1888.     Mar.  10  to  July  24,  in  the  House. July  26  to  Aug.  I,  in  the  Senate. 

Sept.  24,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1117,  2456  P,  25 1 8,  2830  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.    pp.  1181,  1185,  I2l6>  I224  p>  I23^>  X366>  J367»  I3^°>  J381- 

388.  Relief  of  Laura  E.  Maddox.     [§  66.] 

S.  2201,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  for  the  relief  of  Laura  E.  Maddox,  widow  and 
executrix,  and  Robert  Morrison,  executor  of  Joseph  H.  Maddox,  deceased." 

1888.     Mar.  I  to  May  31,  in  the  Senate. May  31  to  Sept.  21,  in  the  House. 

Oct.  10,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  405,  903  P,  1448,   1467,  1471,  1484,   1534  O, 
1537. House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  2029,  2034,  2816,  2817,  2841. 

389.  Pension  to  Sarah  A.  Woodbridge.     [§  76.] 

S.  3276,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  restoration  of  pension  to  Sarah  A.  Wood- 
bridge." 


1 888]  Cleveland's  Administration.  201 

1888.     July  9  to  Aug.  23,  in  the  Senate. Aug.  24  to  Sept.  21,  in  the  House. 

Oct.  12,  vetoed. 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1071,  1162,  1273,  1322,  1334?,  1448,   1467, 

1471,  1484,  1546  O,  1547. House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  2661,  2664,  2725, 

2818  P,  2842. 

390.  Relief  of  James  M.  Wilbur.     [§  66.] 

S.  1044,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  state 
and  settle  the  account  of  James  M.  Wilbur  with  the  United  States,  and  to  pay  said 
Wilbur  such  sum  of  money  as  may  be  found  due  him  thereon." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Mar.  21,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Mar.  22  to  Sept.  21,  in  the  House. 

1888.  Oct.  12,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  loo,  251,  515  P,  1448,  1467,  1471,  1484,  15500, 
1553. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1294,  1694,  2450,  2816,  2817  P,  2841. 

391.  Pension  to  Mary  K.  Richards.     [§  72.] 

S.  3306,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An.  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  K.  Richards." 

1888.     July  II  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. Aug.  22  to  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. 

Oct.  15,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  pp.  1092,  1301,  1315  P,  1480,  1499,  1500,  1507, 
1548  O. House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  2636,  2645,  277^>  2856  P,  2878. 

392.  Pension  to  William  S.  Bradshaw.     [§  74.] 

S.  3208,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  S.  Bradshaw." 

1888.     June  25  to  Aug.  21,  in  the  Senate. Aug.  22  to  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. 

Oct.  15,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  pp.  1002,  1280,  1315  P,  1480,  1499,  1500,  1507, 
1548  O,  1550. House  Journal,  i  sess.'jo  Cong.  pp.  2636,  2645,  2739,  2856  P,  2878. 

393.  Pension  to  Mary  Woodworth.     [§  74.] 

H.  R,  7657,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.  "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Woodworth,  widow 
of  Ebenezer  F.  Woodworth." 

1888.     Feb.  24  to  Aug.  24,  in  the  House. Aug.  27  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  906,  2307,  2661  P,  2845,  2935  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1352,  1353,  1385,  1458  P,  1499,  1501. 

394.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Sophia  Vogelsang.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  10661,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.    "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Sophia  Vogelsang." 

1888.     June  30  to  Sept.  7,  in  the  House. Sept.  10  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  2244,  2491,  2746  P,  2845,  2933  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1399,  1415,  1459  P,  1499,  1502. 

395.  Pension  to  John  Robeson.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  6201,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  Robeson." 

1888.     Jan.  30  to  Aug.  24,  in  the  House. Aug.  27  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  573,  2661  P,  2844,  2932  O. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1352,  1353,  1385,  1458  P,  1499,  1501. 

396.  Pension  to  Peter  Liner.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  Of 06,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Peter  Liner." 

1888.     Apr.  2  to  Sept.  7,  in  the  House. Sept.  10  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  1 6,  vetoed. 


2O2  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50   Cong.     pp.   1392,  2552,  2746  P,  2845,  2933  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1399,  1400,  1414,  1459  P,  1499,  1501. 

397.  Pension  to  William  S.  Latham.     [§  76.] 

H.  R.  10563,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  S.  Latham." 

1888.     June  1 8  to  Aug.  24,  in  the  House. Aug.  27  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  z  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  2148,  2286,  2663  P,  2845,  2934  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1352,  1353,  1389,  1458  P,  1499,  1502. 

398.  Pension  to  Lydia  A.  Eaton.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2472,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Lydia  A.  Eaton." 

1888.     Jan.  4  to  Sept.  7,  in  the  House. Sept.  10  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  147,  2131,  2746  P,  2844,  2937  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1399,  1400,  1415,  1459  P,  1499,  I5°°- 

399.  Pension  to  John  Dauper.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  10342,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  Dauper." 

1888.     June  4  to  Aug.  24,  in  the  House. Aug.  27  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  2048,  2492,  2662  P,  2845,  2937  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1352,  1353,  1389,  1458  P,  1499,  1502. 

400.  Pension  to  Ester  Gaven.     [§  72.] 

H.  R.  11005,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Ester  Gaven." 

1888.     July  26  to  Sept.  7,  in  the  House. Sept.  10  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  2466,  2666,  2746  P,  2846,  2938  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1399,  1400,  1414,  1459  P,  1499,  1502. 

401.  Pension  to  Mary  Hooper.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  10504,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  Hooper." 

T888.     June  13  to  Aug.  31,  in  the  House. Sept.  3  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  2129,  2659,  2703  P,  2845,  293^  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1373,  1374,  1400,  1458  P,  1499,  1502. 

402.  Pension  to  Ellen  Kelly.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4820,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Ellen  Kelly." 

1888.     Jan.  13  to  Aug.  31,  in  the  House. Sept.  3  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  378,  2659,  2702  P,  2844,  2936  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1373,  1374,  1405,  1458  P,  1499,  1501. 

403.  Pension  to  Elizabeth  Heckler.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  1 1 222,  j  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Elizabeth  Heckler." 

1888.     Aug.  20  to  Sept.  7,  in  the  House. Sept.  10  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  2624,  2708,  2746  P,  2846,  2936  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1399,  1400,  1414,  1459  P,  1499,  1502. 

404.  Pension  to  Mary  A.  Carr.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4102,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  A.  Carr." 
1888.     Jan.  9  to  Mar.  9,  in  the  House. Mar.  12  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 


1888-1889]  Cleveland's  Administration.  203 

1888.     Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50.   Cong.     pp.  281,  882,  mo  P,  2844,  2937  O. Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  453,  1356,  1457  P,  1499,  1501. 

405.  Pension  to  Eliza  S.  Glass.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  11332,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.    "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Eliza  S.  Glass." 

1888.     Sept.  i  to  Sept.  14,  in  the  House. Sept.  17  to  Sept.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

Oct.  17,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30   Cong.     pp.  2704,  2756,  2784  P,  2846,  2935  O- Senate 

Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1428,  1429,  1443,  1459  P,  1499,  1502. 

406.  Relief  of  C.  B.  Wilson.     [§  70.] 

H.  R.  joSo,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  C.  B.  Wilson." 

1888.     Jan.  16  to  May  14,  in  the  House. May  15  to  Dec.  12,  in  the  Senate. 

Dec.  19,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30   Cong.     pp.  392,  789,  1902  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

30  Cong.      pp.  824,   1209. House  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.      pp.  78,  8l,  89,  114, 

1 1 8  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  57  P,  58. 

407.  Relief  of  Michael  Piggott.     [§  66.] 

H.  R.  84.69,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Michael  Piggott." 

1888.  Mar.  13  to  Sept.  14,  in  the  House. Sept.  17  to  Dec.  21,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1158,  2781,  2782  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

50  Cong.     pp.  1428,  1429,  1473. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  135,  140,  155, 

258  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  98  P,  106,  107. 

408.  Pension  to  Thomas  Walsh.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7,  /  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Thomas  B.  Walsh." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1888,  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. 1888,  Oct.  I  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.     Jan.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  71,  2160,  2856  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

50  Cong.     pp.   1480,  1481,   1504. House  Journal,  2  sess.  30   Cong.      pp.   127,  140, 

256  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  91  P,  106,  107. 

409.  Pension  to  Charles  E    Scott.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  4887,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Charles  E.  Scott." 

1888.  Jan.  13  to  Oct.  5,  in  the  House. Oct.  8  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  16,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  381,  2778,  2892,  2893  p- Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1512,  1517,  1545- House  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  127, 

140,  155,  257  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  92  P,  106,  107. 

410.  Pension  to  Eli  J.  Yamgheim.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  2236,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Eli  J.  Yamgheim." 

1888.  Jan.  4  to  Oct.  5,  in  the  House. Oct.  8  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  1 6,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  138,  2779,  2892,  2893  P. Senate  Journal, 

i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1516,  1517,  1545. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  127, 

140,  155,  257  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  92  P,  106,  107. 

*  411.   Relief  of  W.  R.  Wheaton  and  C.  H.  Chamberlain.     [§  66.] 
S.  3646,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  William  R.  Wheaton  and  Charles 
H.  Chamberlain,  of  California." 


204  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

1888.  Dec.  4  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. Dec.  21  to  1889,  Jan.  3,  in  the  House. 

1889.  Jan.  17,  vetoed. Feb.  26,  reconsidered  in  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

35  to  8. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  32,  45,  92  P,  106,  113,  115,  169  O,  171,  406  R. 
House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  127,  139  P,  154,  640. 

412.  Pension  to  Mary  I.  Drake.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9173,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mary  I.  Drake." 

1888.  Apr.  3  to  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. Oct.  I  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  1417,  2161,  2856  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  1481,  1503. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  127,  146,  174,  299, 

303  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  91  P,  ill,  114. 

413.  Pension  to  Mrs.   Catherine  Baberick.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9252,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Catherine  Baberick, 
of  Watertown." 

1888.  Apr.  4  to  Sept.  21,  in  the  House. Sept.  24  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  1 8,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1492,  2739,  2818  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  1449,  1453,  1485. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  127,  146,  174, 

299,  304  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  91  P,  III,  114. 

414.  Relief  of  Charles  W.  Geddes.     [§  70.] 

H.  R.  9797,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Charles  W.  Geddes." 

1888.  May  2  to  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. Oct.  i  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1796,  2461,  2855  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  1481,  1510. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  128,  147,  174,  299, 

305  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  91  P,  ill,  114. 

415.  Pension  to  Bridget  Carroll.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9296,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Bridget  Carroll." 

1888.  Apr.  4  to  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. Oct.  I  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  18,  vetoed. 

House   Journal,  i  sess.  jo   Cong.     pp.  1520,  2855   P. Senate   Journal,    i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  1481,  1510. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  127,  146,  174,  299, 

304  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  91  P,  1 1 1,  1 14. 

416.  Pension  to  George  Wallen.     [§  76.] 

H.  R.  9/75,  /  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  George  Wallen." 

1888.  Apr.  3  to  Sept.  28,  in  the  House. Oct.  I  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  1417,  2160,  2855  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

jc >  Cong.     pp.  1481,  1510. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  127,  146,  174,  299, 

305  O. -Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  91  P,  in,  114. 

417.  Pension  to  Mary  Karstetter.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  7<?77,  /  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  to  place  Mary  Karstetter  on  the  pension  roll." 

1888.  Feb.  28  to  Sept/28,  in  the  House. Oct.  i  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Jan.  18,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  957,  2079,  2855  P. Senate  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  1481,  1510. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  127,  146,  174,  299, 

305  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.    pp.  91  P,  in,  114. 


*889]  Cleveland's  Administration.  205 

418.  Pension  to  Mrs.  Ellen  Hand.     [§  74.] 

S.  3264,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Mrs.  Ellen  Hand." 

1888.  July  5  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. July  26  to  1889,  Jan.  18,  in  the  House. 

1889.  Jan.  31,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  1054,  1160,  1175  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  2472,  2481. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  175,  187,  188,  21 1, 

241  O,  242. House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  87,  300,  301  P,  331. 

419.  Pension  to  Eli  Garrett.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  9163,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Eli  Garrett." 

1888.  Apr.  3  to  Dec.  14,  in  the  House. Dec.  17  to  1889,  Jan.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  12,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.    p.  141 7. House  Journal,  2  sess. 50  Cong.    pp.  90  P, 

352,  400,  481,  484  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  66,  166,  216  P,  230. 

420.  Relief  of  Julia  Triggs.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5752,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  for  the  relief  of  Julia  Triggs." 

1888.  Jan.  23  to  Dec.  14,  in  the  House. Dec.  17  to  1889,  Jan.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  12,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  493,  1156. House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong. 

pp.  90,  91  P,  352,  400,  481,  484  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  66,  166, 

216  P,  230. 

421.  Pension  to  Clara  M.  Owen.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  TIOJ2,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Clara  M.  Owen." 

1888.  July  31  to  1889,  Jan.  18,  in  the  House. 1889,  Jan.  19  to  Jan.  25,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  12,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  2508,  2631. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong. 

pp.  300,  301  P,  352,  400,  481,  485  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  175, 

177,  1 86,  216  P,  230. 

422.  Pension  to  Frank  D.  "Worcester.     [§  74.] 

S.  3451,  J  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Frank  D.  Worcester." 

1888.  Aug.  1 6  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. Dec.  21  to  1889,  Jan.  25,  in  the  House. 

1889.  Feb.  13,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.   p.  1297. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.   pp.  58, 

92  P,  220,  238,  239,  242,  317  O,  318. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  126,  138, 

188,  345,  346  P,  380. 

423.  Pension  to  Michael  Shong.     [§  74.] 

S.  2314,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Michael  Shong." 

1888.  Mar.  26  to  July  25,  in  the  Senate. July  26  to  1889,  Jan.  25,  in  the  House. 

1889.  Feb.  13,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  540,  1162,  1175  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  2471,  2480. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  220,  238,  239,  242, 

318  O,  319. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  345,  346  P,  380. 

424.  Pension  to  Charles  J.  Esty.     [§  72.] 

S.  266j,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Charles  J.  Esty." 

1888.  Apr.  ii  to  June  6,  in  the  Senate. June  7  to  1889,  Feb.  2,  in  the  House. 

1889.  Feb.  14,  vetoed. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  640,  923,  934  P. House  Journal,  i  sess. 

jo  Cong.     pp.  2088,  2094. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  248,  265,  266,  268, 

324  O. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  402,  403  P,  431. 


206  List  of  Vetoes.  [APP.  A 

425.  Quieting  settlers'  titles  on  the  Des  Moines  River.     [§  48.] 

H.  R.  1368,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  to  quiet  the  title  of  settlers  on  the  Des  Moines 
River  lands,  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  for  other  purposes." 

1888.  Jan.  4  to  Dec.  5,  in  the  House. Dec.  6  to  1889,  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  21,  vetoed. Mar.  I,  reconsidered  by  the  House;   vote,  147-104. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.    p.  193. House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.    pp.  49  P, 

457,  466,  481,  587,  596  O,  683,  697,  702  R. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.    pp.  41, 

283  P,  290,  291. 

426.  Pension  to  John  J.  Lockrey.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  220,  i  sess.  50  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  J.  Lockrey." 

1887.  Dec.  21  to  1889,  Feb.  i,  in  the  House. 1889,  Feb.  4  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.     Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  79,  2184. House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong. 

pp.  402  P,  464,  476,  622,  631  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  249,  271, 

285  P,  298,  299. 

427.  Pension  to  John  McCool.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  5807,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  John  McCool." 

1888.  Jan.  23  to  1889,  Jan.  25,  in  the  House. 1889,  Jan.  28  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  50  Cong.    p.  495. House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.    pp.  345, 

346  P,  464,  476,  622,  632  O.  —. —  Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  221,  223,  235, 

286  P,  298,  299. 

428.  Pension  to  William  Barnes.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  11999,  2  sess'  5°  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  William  Barnes." 

1889.     Jan.  7  to  Jan.  18,  in  the  House. Jan.  19  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.    pp.  164,  246,  301  P,  465,  477,  489,  633  O. Senate 

Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  175,  177,  199,  285  P,  298,  299. 

429.  Pension  to  Henry  V.  Bass.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  11803,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Henry  V.  Bass." 

1888.  Dec.  14  to  1889,  Jan.  25,  in  the  House. 1889,  Jan.  28  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  23,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  85,  288,  345,  346  P,  465,  477,  487,  632  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  221,  223,  235,  286  P,  298,  299. 

430.  Pension  to  Edwin  W.  Warner.     [§  72.] 

S.  3561,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Edwin  W.  Warner." 

1888.  Sept.  17  to  Dec.  20,  in  the  Senate. Dec.  21  to  1889,  Feb.  8,  in  the  House. 

1889.  Feb.  25,  vetoed. 

Senate    Journal,    i  sess.  jo  Cong.     p.  1426. Senate   Journal,  2  sess.  jo   Cong. 

pp.  92  P,  289,  303,  304,  309,  399  O,  400. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  126, 

139,  1 88,  459  P,  478. 

431.  Pension  to  Squire  Walter.     [§  74.] 

H.  R.  10448,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     "  An  act  granting  a  pension  to  Squire  Walter." 

1888.  June  9  to  1889,  Jan.  18,  in  the  House. 1889,  Jan.  19  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  Senate. 

1889.  Feb.  25,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  i  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  2105,  2804. House  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong. 

pp.  300,  301  P,  464,  477,  622,  633  O. Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  jo  Cong.     pp.  175, 

177,209,285^298,299. 


1889]  Cleveland's  Administration.  207 

432.  Pension  to  Qeorge  Colwell.     [§  73.] 

H.  R.  12047,  2  sess.  50  Cong.  "  An  act  granting  an  increase  of  pension  to  George 
Colwell." 

1889.     Jan.  ii  to  Feb.  8,  in  the  House. Feb.  9  to  Feb.  15,  in  the  Senate. 

Feb.  26,  vetoed. 

House  Journal,  2  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  199,  340,  460  P,  516,  529,  542,  643,  696  O. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  290,  300,  328  P,  334,  336. 

*  433.  Refunding  the  Direct  Tax.     [§  54.] 

S.  /j^,  i  sess.  50  Cong.  "  An  act  to  credit  and  pay  to  the  several  States  and  Terri- 
tories and  the  District  of  Columbia  all  moneys  collected  under  the  direct  tax  levied  by 
the  act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one." 

1887.     Dec.  12  to  1888,  Jan.  18,  in  the  Senate. 1888,  Jan.  19  to  Dec.  12,  in  the 

House. 
1889.     Mar.  2,  vetoed. Mar.  2,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  passed  over  the  veto, 

45  to  9- 
Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  30  Cong.     pp.  31,  58,  140,  141, 182,  183  P. House  Journal, 

1  sess.  30  Cong.    pp.  469,  878,  953,  1138,  1407,  1445,  1S33>  15S2- Senate  Journal, 

2  sess.  so  Cong.    pp.  58,  83,  84,  86,  89,  90,  288,  298,  334,  336,  340,  342,  350,  357,  380, 

501  O,  509  R. House  Journal,  2  sess.  50  Cong.     pp.  49,  50,  54,  69,  71,  73,  76,  77  P, 

120,  121,  466,  469,  531,  534,  550,  551,  558,  573,  742. 


APPENDIX    B. 

A   CHRONOLOGICAL   LIST   OF    PRESIDENTIAL   PROTESTS 
FROM   APRIL   6,    1789,    TO    MARCH   4, 


PRESIDENT  JACKSON   (1829-1837). -[I  PROTEST.] 

1.  Censure  of  the  Senate.     [§  20.] 

A  protest  against  the  Senate  resolution  censuring  the  President  for  his  course  in  the 
bank  controversy. 
1834.     Apr.  15,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  jj,  p.  119  Q. 

PRESIDENT   TYLER  (1841-1845).- [2  PROTESTS.] 

2.  Refusal  to  furnish  information.     [§  26.] 

A  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  President  to  furnish  to  the  House  of  Representatives  the 
names  of  applicants  for  office. 
1842.     Mar.  23,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  53,  p.  ibj  O. 

3.  Committee  report  on  tariff  veto.     [§  53.] 

A  protest  against  the  report  made  by  a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
upon  the  President's  tariff  veto  of  Aug.  9,  1842. 
1842.     Aug.  29,  protest  signed.  Congressional  Globe,  27  Cong.  2  sess.  p.  973  O. 

» 

PRESIDENT   BUCHANAN   (1857-1861).- [I  PROTEST.] 

4.  Covode  investigation.     [§  32.] 

A  protest  against  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  appointing  a  com- 
mittee to  investigate  the  President's  conduct. 
1860.     Mar.  28,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  53,  p.  2^4  O. 

PRESIDENT   LINCOLN  (1861-1865).- [I  PROTEST.] 

5.  Davis- Wade  Bill. 

A  proclamation  giving  the  President's  reasons  for  not  signing  the  Davis- Wade  Bill. 
1864.     July  8,  proclamation  signed.      Appleton's  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1864,  p.  307  O. 

1  This  list  includes  those  protests  which  have  had  reference  to  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power.     It  is 
not  intended  to  include  all  presidential  protests. 

[208] 


List  of  Protests.  209 


PRESIDENT   JOHNSON   (1865-1869).  -  [I  PROTEST.] 

6.  Rider  taking  away  President's  war  power.     [§  30.] 

A  protest  against  a  rider  which  was  tacked  to  an  army  appropriation  bill,  and  which 
took  from  the  President  his  direct  command  of  the  army. 
1867.     Mar.  2,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  33,  p.  347  O. 

PRESIDENT   GRANT  (1869-1877).- [3  PROTESTS.] 

7.  River  and  Harbor  Bill.     [§  91.] 

A  protest  against  an  extravagant  river  and  harbor  bill. 
1876.     Aug.  14,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  53,  p.  399  O. 

8.  Diplomatic  Bill.     [§  23.] 

A  protest  against  the  invasion  by  Congress  of  the  President's  authority  in  foreign  affairs. 

1876.  Aug.  14,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  53,  p.  402  O. 

9.  Blankets  for  a  reform  school.     [§  9.] 

A  protest  against  a  joint  resolution  of  Congress  which  granted  to  a  reform  school 
army  blankets  which  were  needed  by  the  army. 

1877.  Jan.  15,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  33,  p.  404  O. 

PRESIDENT    HAYES  (1877-1881).- [I  PROTEST.] 

10.  Fees  of  United  States  Marshals. 

A  protest  against  the  failure  of  Congress  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  United  States 
Marshals.1 
1879.    June  30,  protest  signed. 

Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.  No.  33,  p.  434  O. 

1  This  protest  occurred  in  the  contest  between  President  Hayes   and  Congress  over  riders.     (See 
Ante,  §  35.) 


APPENDIX  C. 

A  CHRONOLOGICAL  LIST  OF  VETOES  SENT  TO  THE  CONGRESS 

OF  THE  CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA  FROM 

MARCH  I,  1 86 1,  TO  MARCH  I/,  1865. 

PREPARED  BY  THE  EDITOR  FROM   DATA   FURNISHED  BY  JOHN  O.  SUMNER. 

1.  Regulating  the  slave  trade.     (BUI.) 

1 86 1.     Mar.  i,  vetoed. Mar.  2,  reconsidered  by  Congress;  vote,  3  states  to  4  states 

(18  yeas  to  28  nays).  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

2.  Removal  of  Congress  to  Richmond.     (Bill.) 

1861.     May  17 (?),  vetoed. May  17,  reconsidered  by  Congress;   vote,  no  states 'in 

favor.  Secret  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

3.  Admiralty  Court  for  Mississippi.     (Bill.) 

1861.     May  2i(?),  vetoed. May  21,  reconsidered  by  Congress;   failed  to  pass. 

Secret  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

4.  Appointment  of  additional  assistant  surgeons.     (Bill.) 

1861.     Aug.  22(?),  vetoed. Aug.  22,  reconsidered  by  Congress;  vote,  I  state  to  II. 

Secret  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

t  5.    [Subject  not  stated.]     (Bills.) 

1861.  Aug.  31,  verbal  statement  on  behalf  of  the  President  by  the  Attorney-General, 
that  the  President  disapproved  of  certain  bills,  but  was  unable  to  prepare  mes- 
sages.  Dec.  21,  report  setting  forth  the  facts;  tabled  by  Congress. 

Secret  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

6.  Regulation  of  furloughs  and  discharges.     (Bill.) 

1 86 1.  Dec.  14,  vetoed. 1862,  Jan.  16,  reconsidered  by  Congress;   vote,  3  states 

to  9.  Secret  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

7.  Small-arms  and  gunpowder.     (Bill.) 

1862.  Jan.  22 (?),  vetoed. Feb.  12,  reconsidered  by  Congress;  vote,  2  states  to  io(?). 

Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

8.  Incorporation  of  Texan  volunteers  into  the  army.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Jan.  22,  vetoed;   Feb.  12,  reconsidered  by  Congress;   vote,  3  states  to  9(?). 

Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

9.  Incorporation  of  Missouri  volunteers  into  the  army.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Jan.   22,  vetoed. Feb.   14,  reconsidered  by  Congress;    vote,  7  states 'to  4 

(i  divided).  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

[210] 


1 86 1- 1 862]  Confederate  States  of  America.  21 1 

10.  Incorporation  of  Missouri  volunteers  into  the  army.     (Bill.) 
1862.     Jan  9,  passed. 

Jan.  23(7),  vetoed. Feb.  14,  reconsidered  by  Congress;   point  of  order  that 

it  had  already  been  reconsidered.1  Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

11.  Furloughs.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Feb.    i,  vetoed. Feb.   15,  reconsidered  by  Congress;    vote,  8  states  to  3 

(2  divided),  [not  considered  a  constitutional  two-thirds  majority]. 

Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

12.  Repeal  of  certain  features  of  the  U.  S.  naturalization  laws.     (Bill.) 
1862.     Feb.  5(?),  vetoed. Feb.  5,  reconsidered  by  Congress;   vote,  3  states  to  9. 

Journals,  Provisional  Congress. 

13.  Creation  of  a  commanding  general.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Mar.  15,  vetoed. Mar.  20,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  1-68. 

Secret  House  Journal,  i  sess.  i  Cong. 

14.  Disposition  of  prize  money.     (Joint  resolution.) 

1 86 1.     Apr.  21  (?),  vetoed. Apr.  21,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   vote  unanimous 

against  the  resolution.  Secret  Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  i  Cong. 

15.  Disposition  of  pay  of  deceased  soldiers.     (Joint  resolution.) 

1861.  Apr.  2i(?),  vetoed. Apr.  21,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   vote,  7-12. 

Secret  Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  i  Cong. 

16.  Prize  money.     (Joint  resolution.) 

1862.  Apr.  21,  vetoed. Apr.  21,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  unanimously  rejected. 

Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  i  Cong. 

f!7.    [No  subjects  stated.]     (Bills.) 

1862.     Apr.  21,  message  to  the  House;   no  time  to  draw  up  reasons  for  withholding 
assent  from  three  bills.  Open  House  Journal,  i  sess.  i  Cong. 

18.  Hank  of  Quartermaster-General.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Oct.  6(?),  vetoed. Oct.  8,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  4-10. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  i  Cong. 

19.  Amendment  of  Provisional  Army  Act.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Oct.  7(?),  vetoed. Oct.  7,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  1-61. 

Open  House  Journal,  2  sess.  I  Cong. 

20.  Bequests  to  American  Bible  Society  to  go  to  C.  S.  Bible  Society. 
(Bill.) 

1862.     Oct.  13,  vetoed. Oct.  13,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  0-16. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  I  Cong. 

21.  Reorganization  of  medical  department.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Oct.  I3(?),  vetoed. Oct.  13,  consideration  postponed  by  the  House.     [No 

record  of  reconsideration.]  Open  Hotise  Journal,  2  sess.  i  Cong. 

22.  Building  a  vessel  of  war.     (Bill.) 

1862.     Oct.  I3(?),  vetoed. Oct.  13,  consideration  postponed  by  the  House.    [No 

record  of  reconsideration.]  Secret  House  Journals,  2  sess.  i  Cong. 

1  This  bill  had  been  presented  to  the  President,  who  supposed  that  it  had  been  superseded  by  the  bill 
first  vetoed;  as  there  was  no  record  of  supersession,  President  Davis  vetoed  the  bill. 


2 1 2  Veto  Power :  —  L  ists.  [APP.  C 

*  23.  Reorganization  of  heavy  artillery.     (Bill.) 

1863.     Mar.  31,  vetoed. Apr.  3,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

18-5. Apr.  7,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  22-59. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  j  sess.  i  Cong. 

24.  Free  postage  for  newspapers.     (Bill.) 

1863.     May  i(?),  vetoed. May  I,  consideration  postponed  by  the  Senate.     [No 

record  of  reconsideration.]  Open  Senate  Journal,  3  sess.  i  Cong. 

25.  Providing  for  elections  in  Tennessee.     (Bill.) 

1863.     May  i  (  ?),  vetoed. May  I,  consideration  indefinitely  postponed  by  the  House. 

Open  House  Journal,  j  sess.  i  Cong. 

26.  Appropriations  for  Kentucky  troops.     (Bill.) 

1863.  Dec.  3i(?),  vetoed. 1864,  Jan.  II,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  10-8. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  4.  sess.  i  Cong. 

27.  Veteran  Soldiers'  Home.     (BUI.) 

1864.  Feb.  n,  vetoed. Feb.  13,  laid  on  the  table  by  the  House.     [No  record  of 

reconsideration.]  Open  House  Journal,  4  sess.  i  Cong. 

28.  Exemption  of  editors  and  employees   of  periodicals.     (Joint  reso- 
lution.) 

1864.     June  y(?),  vetoed. June  8,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  ii-io. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  2  Cong. 

29.  Appointment  of  additional  officers  of  artillery.     (Bill.) 
1864.     June  7(?),  vetoed. June  8,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  1-22. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  r  sess.  2  Cong. 

30.  Exemption  to  vessels  chartered  by  states.     (Bill.) 

1864.     June  10,  vetoed. June  10,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  26-43. 

Open  House  Journal,  i  sess.  2  Cong. 

31.  Claim  of  McDaniel  and  Ewing.     (Joint  resolution.) 

1864.     June  n(?),  vetoed. June  13,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  9-7. 

Open  Senate  Journal,  i  sess.  2  Cong. 

32.  Funding  and  reducing  treasury  notes.     (Bill.) 

1864.  June  14,  vetoed. June  14,  consideration  postponed.     [No  record  of  recon- 

sideration.] Open  House  Journal,  i  sess.  2  Cong. 

*33.  Increase  of  midshipmen.     (Bill.) 

1865.  Jan.  23 (?),  vetoed. Jan.  23,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the 

veto,  15-3. Jan.  26,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  40-36. 

Senate  and  House  Journals,  2  sess.  2  Cong. 

**  34.  Newspapers  to  soldiers  to  be  free  of  postage.     (Bill., 

1865.     Jan.  26,  vetoed. Jan.  28,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

13-4. Jan.  31,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the  veto,  63-13. 

Senate  and  House  Journals,  2  sess.  2  Cong. 

*  35.  Promotion  of  officers  by  general  commanding  in  the  field.     (Bill.) 
1865.     Mar.  9,  vetoed. Mar.  n,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;   passed  over  the  veto, 

11-5. Mar.  n(?),  reconsidered  by  the  House;  vote,  14-45. 

Senate  and  House  Journals,  2  sess.  2  Cong. 


1863-1865]  Confederate  States  of  America.  213 

36.  Abolition  of  certain  offices,     (Bill.) 

1865.     Mar.  n,  vetoed. Nov.  14,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;  vote,  8-7. 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  2  Cong. 

37.  Diminishing  exemptions  and  details.     (Bill.) 
1865.     Mar.  13,  vetoed.     [No  record  of  reconsideration.] 

Senate  Journal,  2  sess.  2  Cong. 

*  38.   Issue  of  $80,000,000  for  payment  of  arrears  to  troops.     (Bill.) 

1865.     Mar.  iy(?),  vetoed. Mar.  17,  reconsidered  by  the  House;  passed  over  the 

veto,  39-18. Mar.   18,  reconsidered  by  the  Senate;    vote,   n-i   (not  a 

quorum).  House  and  Senate  Journals,  2  sess.  2  Cong. 


APPENDIX    D. 

LEGISLATIVE   ACTIVITY    OF   THE    PRESIDENTS, 
1789-1889. 


COMPILED  BY  THE  EDITOR. 


This  appendix  is  based  upon  an  examination  of  the  Statutes  at  Large.  A  note  after 
each  statute  indicates  whether  it  was  signed,  became  law  by  the  ten  days  rule,  or  was 
passed  over  the  veto.  The  number  of  vetoes  is  taken  from  Appendix  A. 


ACTS  AND  JOINT  RESOLUTIONS. 

BILLS. 

Signed  by 

Became  law 

Passed 

Total 

the 

by  ten  days 

over  the 

Total. 

Vetoed. 

acts  and 

• 

President. 

rule. 

veto. 

vetoes. 

1789-1793.   Washington,  I.      .     . 

195 

O 

O 

195 

I, 

196 

1793-1797.   Washington,  II.    .     . 

210* 

O 

O 

211 

I 

212 

1797-1801.   John  Adams     .     .     . 

268 

O 

O 

268 

O 

268 

1801-1805.   Jefferson,  I  

205* 

o 

o 

206 

0 

206 

1805-1809.   Jefferson,  II.     ... 

211 

0 

0 

211 

0 

211 

1809-1813.    Madison,  I  

324* 

o 

0 

325 

4 

329 

1813-1817.    Madison,  11.     .     .     . 

569* 

0 

0  " 

571 

2 

573 

1817-1821.   Monroe,  I  

465 

0 

0 

465 

0 

465 

1821-1825.    Monroe,  II.      ... 

573 

0 

o 

573 

I 

574 

1825-1829.    J.  Q.  Adams      .     .     . 

501 

o 

o 

501 

o 

SGI 

1829-1833.  Jackson,  I  

831 

o 

o 

831 

7 

838 

1  833-1  837-   Jackson,  II.      ... 

848 

o 

o 

848 

5 

853 

1837-1841.   Van  Buren-  .... 

679 

o 

o 

679 

o 

679 

1841-1845    Tyler  ...          .     . 

802 

o 

I 

803 

Q 

811 

1845-1849    Polk    .          ... 

7QQ 

o 

o 

WVJ 

7QQ 

7 

9 

802 

1849-1853.   Taylor  and  Fillmore. 

177 

973 

0 

0 

177 

973 

J 
0 

973 

1853—1857    Pierce      .... 

068 

o 

c 

073 

Q77 

1857-1861.    Buchanan    .... 

y**** 

680 

2 

J 

o 

7  I  J 
682 

7 

"/  / 
689 

1861-1865.    Lincoln  

1035 

I 

o 

1036 

3 

1039 

1865-1869.   Johnson  

144-6 

18 

1C 

1479 

21 

1481; 

1869-1873.    Grant,  I  

*T"T"W 
1756 

24 

J  . 

I 

T"/  S 
I78l 

*7 

•^»*j 

1797 

1873-1877.    Grant,  II  

I3IQ 

112 

7 

1434 

26 

I4t>7 

1877-1881.    Hayes      

o   7 
I3QC 

o 

o 
I 

I3Q6 

12 

•  J  / 

I4O7 

1881-1885.    Arthur     .... 

*  J7j 

1716 

13 

I 

*  J7^ 
I  7  -JQ 

4 

T"       / 
17-27 

1885-1889.   Cleveland     .... 

*  I  i\j 
299I 

*  J 

283 

2 

•  /  jv 
3276 

T" 
301 

/  33 
3575 

2i,759 

453 

29 

22,246 

433 

22,650 

*  No  record  of  the  President's  action  on  five  joint  resolutions. 


APPENDIX   E. 

PROVISIONS    OF    STATE    CONSTITUTIONS 

RELATIVE    TO    THE   VETO, 

JULY    15,   1890. 

COMPILED   BY  THE   EDITOR. 

The  basis  of  this  appendix  is  the  analysis  in  Stimson's  American  Statute  Law,  §§  305- 
307,  310.  The  tabulation  in  Benton's  Veto  Power,  pp.  57,  58,  has  been  compared. 
Wherever  the  two  authorities  disagree,  and  in  the  cases  of  the  six  new  States,  North 
Dakota,  South  Dakota,  Montana,  Washington,  Wyoming,  and  Idaho,  the  Constitutions 
have  been  directly  examined. 

APPROVAL   OF   LEGISLATION    BY  THE  GOVERNOR. 

1.  Bills  submitted. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories,  every  bill  passed  by  the  Legislature  shall  be 
presented  to  the  governor  before  it  becomes  a  law,  and  if  he  approves,  he  is  to  sign  it :  — 
N.H.,  Mass.,  Me.,  Vt.,  Ct.,  N.  Y.,  N.J.,  Pa.,  Ind.,  III.,  Mich.,  Wis.,  Io.,  Minn.,  Kan., 
Neb.,  N.D.,  S.D.,  Mon.,  Wy.,  Ida.,  Md.,  Va.,  W.Va.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Mo.,  Ark.,  Tex., 
Cal.,  Ore.,  Wash.,  Nev.,  Col.,  S.C.,  Ga.,  Ala.,  Miss.,  Fla.,  La.,  —  40  States.  Ariz., 
N.Mex.,  Utah,  —  !  Territories. 

2.  Bills  not  submitted. 

In  the  following  States  there  is  no  provision  for  submission  of  bills:  —  R.I.,  Del.,  0., 
JV.C.,  —  4  States. 

3.  Joint  resolutions  submitted. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories,  every  joint  or  concurrent  resolution,  except  for 
adjournment,  is  submitted  in  like  manner: — N.H.,  Mass.,  Me.,  Pa.,  Mich.,  Minn., 
Kan.,  Neb.,  Mon.,  Wy.,  Va.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Mo.*  Ark.,  Tex.,  Col,  S.C.,  Ga.,  Ala.,  Miss., 
La.,  Wash.,  —  23  States.  Ariz.,  —  I  Territory. 

4.  Joint  resolutions  not  submitted. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories  there  is  no  provision  for  submission  of  joint 
resolutions:  —  Vt.,  R.I.,  Ct.,  N.  Y.,  N.J.,  O.,  Ind.,  III.,  Wis.,  Io.,  N.D.,  S.D.,  Ida.,  Md., 
Del.,  W.Va.,N.C.,  Cal.,  Ore.,  Nev.,  Ga.,  —  2i  States.  N.Mex.,  Utah,  —  2  Territories. 

VETO    OF    LEGISLATION    BY   THE   GOVERNOR. 

5.  No  requirement  of  return  or  statement  of  reasons. 

The  governor  may  withhold  his  signature  without  stating  reasons  in :  —  Ga.,  —  I  State. 

6.  Return  to  the  House  in  which  the  proposition  originated. 

The  governor  may  veto  a  bill  or  resolution,  when  submitted,  by  returning  it,  with  his 
objections,  to  the  House  in  which  it  originated,  in  the  following  States  and  Territories :  — 
N.H.,  Mass.,  Me.,  Vt.,  Ct.,  N.  K,  N.J.,  Pa.,  Ind.,  III.,  Mich.,  Wis.,  Io.,  Minn.,  Neb., 
NJ).,  S.D.,  Mon.,  Wy.,  Ida.,  Md.,  Va.,  W.  Va.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Mo.,  Ark.,  Tex.,  Cal.,  Ore., 

*  Except  resolutions  for  amending  the  Constitution. 
[215] 


2 1 6  Veto  Power :  —  State  Constitutions.  [APP.  E 

Wash.,  Nev.,  Col.,  S.C.,  Ala.,  Miss.,  Fla.,  La.,  —  38  States.     Ariz.,  N.Mex.,   Utah, — 
3  Territories. 

7.  Return  to  the  lower  House. 

In  one  State  the  bill  or  resolution  is  to  be  returned  to  the  House  of  Representatives : 
Kan.,  —  I  State. 

8.  Veto  of  items  in  appropriation  bills. 

In  the  following  States  the  governor  may  veto  certain  items  in  an  appropriation  bill, 
and  allow  others  to  become  a  law :  — N.  Y.,  N.J.,  Pa.,  Minn.,  Neb.,  N.D.,  S.D.,  Man., 
Wy.,  Ida.,  W.Va.,  Mo.,  Ark.,  Tex.,  Cal,  CoL,  Ga.,  Ala.,  Fla.,  La.,  —  20  States. 

9.  No  veto  of  items  in  appropriation  bills. 

In  the  following  States  there  is  no  power  to  veto  parts  of  bills: — N.H.,  Mass.,  Me., 
VL,  Conn.,  Ind.,  111.,  Mich.,  Wis.,  Io.,  Kan.,  Md.,  Va.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Ore.,  Wash.,  Nev., 
S.  C.,  Miss.,  —  20  States. 

10.  No  veto  power. 

In  the  following  States  there  is  no  provision  for  revision  of  a  bill  by  the  governor :  — 
R.L,  0.,  Del.,  N.C.,  —  4  States. 

PASSING    LEGISLATION    OVER   THE  VETO. 

11.  Majority  vote. 

A  vetoed  bill  shall  become  law  if  it  receive,  on  reconsideration,  an  ordinary  majority 
vote  in  :  —  Ct.,  Vt.,  —  2  States. 

12.  Majority  of  all  the  members  elected. 

In  the  following  States  a  majority  of  all  the  elected  members  of  each  House  is 
required :  —  N.J.,  Ind.,  W.  Va.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Ark.,  Ala.,  —  7  States. 

13.  Three-fifths  of  the  elected  members. 

In  the  following  States  a  vote  of  three-fifths  of  the  elected  members  of  each  House 
is  required :  —  Neb.,  Md.,  —  2  States. 

14.  Two -thirds  of  the  members  present. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  in 
each  House  is  requisite:  — N.H.,  Mass.,  Me.,  Wis.,  Minn.,  S.D.,  Mon.,  Ida.,  Va.,  Tex., 
Ore.,  S.C.,  Ga.,  Miss.,  Fla., —  15  States.  N.Mex.,  Ariz.,  Utah,  —  3  Territories. 

15.  Two-thirds  of  the  elected  members. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  elected  members  of 
each  House  is  requisite :  —  N.  Y.,  Pa.,  III.,  Mich.,  Io.,  Kan.,  N.D.,  Wy.,  Cal.,  Nev.,  Col., 
La.,  Wash., —  13  States. 

16.  Two-thirds  of  elected  members  in  originating  House,  and  a  major- 
ity in  the  other  House. 

A  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  elected  members  of  the  House  in  which  the  proposition 
originated,  and  of  a  majority  in  the  other  House,  is  required  in  Mo., —  I  State. 

17.  No  reconsideration. 

In  the  following  States  the  proposition  is  not  submitted  to  the  governor  and  hence 
is  not  subject  to  reconsideration:  —  R.I.,  O.,  Del.,  N.C.,  —  4  States. 

ENTRY   IN    THE  JOURNALS. 

18.  Entry  required. 

In  case  of  reconsideration,  the  votes  must  be  entered  on  the  Journal  in  the  following 
States:—  N.H.,  Mass.,  Me.,  Vt.,  Ct.,  N.Y.,  N.J.,  Pa.,  III.,  Mich.,  Wis.,  Minn.,  Neb., 


Nos.  7-30.]  Detailed  Provisions. 

N.D.,  S.D.,  Mon.,  Wy.,  Ida.,  Md.,  Fa.,  W.  Va.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Mo.,  Ark.,  Tex.,  Ore.,  Nev., 
Col.,  S.C.,  Ala.,  Miss.,  Fla.,  La.,  Wash.,  —  ^  States. 

19.  Entry  not  required. 

In  the  following  States,  in  which  a  veto  may  be  overridden  by  a  sufficient  vote,  there 
is  no  requirement  that  the  veto  be  entered  in  the  Journals :  —  Ind.y  Io.,  Kan.,  Cal.,  — 
4  States. 

20.  Veto  not  submitted. 

In  one  State  no  statement  of  reasons  is  required:  —  Ga.,  —  I  State. 

21.  No  reconsideration. 

In  the  following  States  there  is  no  veto,  and  hence  no  reconsideration  to  be  entered :  — 
R.I.,  O.,  Del.,  N.C.,  —  4  States. 

LEGISLATION     NOTWITHSTANDING    THE   WITHHOLDING    OF  THE 
GOVERNOR'S    SIGNATURE. 

22.  Signature  in  no  case  required. 

In  the  following  States  bills  become  law  without  submission  to  the  governor :  —  R.I., 
Del.,  O.,  N.C.,  —  4  States. 

23.  Kept  three  days  without  returning. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories,  if  the  proposition  be  kept  by  the  governor 
three  days  without  returning  it,  it  will  become  a  law,  without  his  signature :  —  Ct.,* 
Ind.*  Wis.,*  Io.*  Minn.,*  Kan.*  N.D.*  S.D.*  Wy.,*  5.  C,  — 10  States.  Utah, 
N.Mex.,  —  2  Territories. 

24.  Kept  five  days  without  returning. 

In  the  following  States  the  same  principle  applies  if  it  be  kept  five  days :  —  N.H., 
Mass.,  Me.*  Vt.,*  N.J.*  Neb.*  Mon.*  Va.*  W.  Va.,*  Tenn.,*  Ark.,*  Ore.,*  Wash.,* 
Nev.*  Ga.*  Ala.,*  Miss.*  Fla.,*  La.,  —  19  States. 

25.  Kept  six  days  without  returning. 

In  the  following  States  the  same  principle  applies  if  the  proposition  be  kept  for  six 
days :  —  Md.*  —  I  State. 

26.  Kept  ten  days  without  returning. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories  the  same  principle  applies,  if  the  proposition 
be  kept  for  ten  days :  —  N.  Y.*  Pa.,  III.*  Mick.*  Ida.,  Ky.,*  Mo.,  Tex.*  Cal.*  Col., 
—  9  States.  Ariz.,  —  I  Territory. 

EFFECT    OF  ADJOURNMENT   ON    THE  TIME    LIMIT. 

27.  Operation  of  the  time  rule  prevented. 

In  the  following  States  and  Territories,  if  the  legislature  adjourn  before  the  time 
respectively  limited  above,  the  bill  does  not  become  law :  —  N.H.,  Mass.,  Vt.,  Ct.,  N.  Y., 
Neb.,  Mich.,  Ore.,  Io.,  Minn.,  Kan.,  Md.,  Va.,  Tenn.,  Cal.,  S.C.,  Ga.,  Ala.,  La.,— 
19  States.  N.Mex.,  Ariz.,  Utah,  —  3  Territories. 

28.  Bills  not  to  be  presented  within  two  days  of  adjournment. 
'    In  Ind.,— i  State. 

29.  Bills  not  to  be  presented  within  three  days  of  adjournment. 
In  Vt., —  i  State. 

30.  Objections  to  be  filed  if  not  approved. 
In  Mon.,  —  i  State. 

*  Sundays  excepted. 


21 8  Veto  Power:  —  State  Constitutions.  APP.  E 

31.  Law  unless  the  bill  is  returned  with   objections  within  five  days 
after  adjournment. 

In  Ind.,  Neb.,  W.  Va.,  Ore.*  —  4  States. 

32.  Law  unless  returned  within  ten  days  after  adjournment. 
///.,  S.D.,  Ida.,  Wash.,  Fla.,  —  $  States. 

33.  Law  unless  returned  within  fifteen  days  after  adjournment. 
N.D.,  Wy.,*  —  2  States. 

34.  Law  unless  returned  within  twenty  days  after  adjournment. 
Ark.,  Tex.,  —  2  States. 

35.  Law  unless  returned  within  thirty  days  after  adjournment. 
N.J.*  Pa.,  Mo.,  Col.,  —  4  States. 

36.  Law  unless  returned  within  three  days  after  the  next  meeting   of 
the  legislature. 

Me.,  Ky.,  Miss.,  —  3  States. 

SIGNATURE   OF  THE  GOVERNOR  AFTER   ADJOURNMENT. 

37.  "Within  ten  days  after  adjournment. 

A  proposition  becomes  law  if  returned  and  signed  by  the  governor  within  ten  days 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  in  Cdl.,*  —  I  State. 

38.  Within  fifteen  days  after  adjournment. 

The  governor  may  sign  a  bill  at  any  time  within  fifteen  days  after  adjournment  in 
Mon.,  —  i  State. 

33.  Within  thirty  days  after  adjournment. 

The  governor  may  sign  bills  at  any  time  within  thirty  days  after  the  final  adjourn- 
ment in  N.  Y.,  /<?.,  —  2  States. 

40.  Within  two  days  after  the  next  meeting. 

The  governor  may  still  sign  the  bill  at  any  time  up  to  two  days  after  the  beginning  of 
the  next  meeting  of  the  legislature  in  S.  C.,  —  I  State. 

41.  Bills  passed  in  last  five  days  signed  within  five  days  after  adjourn- 
ment. 

Such  bills  still  become  law  in  Mich.,  —  I  State. 

42.  Passed  in  last  three  days  signed  within  three  days. 

Such  bills  become  law  in  Minn., —  I  State. 

43.  No  provision  for  signature  after  adjournment. 

In  the  following  States  there  is  no  provision  for  signature  by  the  governor  after  a  final 
adjournment:—  N.H.,  Mass.,  Me.,  Vt.,  R.L,  Ct.,  N.J.,  Pa.,  O.,  Ind.,  III.,  Wis.,  Kan., 
Neb.,  N.D.,  S.D..  Id.,  Wy.,  Md.,  Del.,  Va.,  W.Va.,  N.C.,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  Mo.,  Ark.,  Tex., 
Ore.,  Wash.,  Nev.,  Col,  Ga.,  Ala.,  Miss.,  Fla.,  La.,—  37  States.  Utah,  N.Mex.,  Ariz., 
—  3  Territories. 

VETO    BY   ANOTHER    LEGISLATURE. 

44.  Congressional  review  of  territorial  legislation. 

The  laws  of  the  following  Territories  are  to  be  submitted  to  Congress,  and,  if  disap- 
proved, shall  be  void :  —  Utah,  N.Mex.,  Ariz.,  —  3  Territories. 

*  Sundays  excepted. 


APPENDIX    F. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY   OF   THE   VETO    POWER. 

In  this  list  are  included  the  full  title  of  all  works  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the 
monograph;  and  also  some  titles  of  books  and  articles  relating  to  the  veto,  though  con- 
taining nothing  not  found  elsewhere.  With  the  exception  of  an  article  by  Governor 
Long  and  some  brief  discussions  in  Von  Hoist,  Pomeroy,  Cooley  and  other  commentators 
on  the  Constitution,  the  author  has  found  no  secondary  authorities  of  value.  Mr.  Benton's 
Veto  Power,  which  is  almost  the  only  formal  treatise  on  the  subject,  is  an  ex  parte  argu- 
ment on  the  application  of  the  veto  to  a  particular  case.  The  debates  in  Congress, 
reports  of  Committees,  and  the  veto  messages  themselves  have  been  the  only  safe  guides. 

Adams,  Henry.  History  of  the  United  States  during  the  First  Administration  of 
Thomas  Jefferson.  2  vols.  New  York,  1889. 

American  Historical  Association.  Papers.  3  vols.  New  York  and  London, 
1886-1889. 

American  "Whig  Review.    The  Veto  Power  (x,  1 1 1). 

Arnold,  S.  G.  History  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations. 
New  York,  1859. 

Bagehot,  "Walter.     The  English  Constitution.     London,  1867. 

Bancroft,  George.  History  of  the  United  States  of  America  (last  revision).  6  vols. 
New  York,  1883.  . 

Bateman,  William  O.  Political  and  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States  of 
America.  St.  Louis,  1876. 

Benton,  T.  H.  Thirty  Years'  View ;  or,  A  History  of  the  Working  of  the  American 
Government  for  Thirty  Years,  from  1820  to  1850.  2  vols.  New  York,  1854. 

Benton,  J.  H.,  Jr.    The  Veto  Power.     Boston,  1889. 

Elaine,  James  G.  Twenty  Years  of  Congress :  From  Lincoln  to  Garfield.  2  vols. 
Norwich,  1884. 

Bolles,  A.  S.  The  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  from  1774  to  1789.  3  vols. 
New  York,  1879-1886. 

Bright,  J.  F.     History  of  England.     3  vols.     London,  1887. 

Bryce,  James.     The  American  Commonwealth.     3  vols.     London,  1889. 

Callender,  E.  B.     Thaddeus  Stevens,  Commoner.     Boston,  1882. 

Colliding,  Alfred.  The  Powers  of  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  and  the  Political  Institutions  and  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United 
States.  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1882. 

Conkling,  F.  A.     Abuses  of  the  Veto  Power.      The  Forum,  Jan.  1890,  viii,  No.  5. 

Conway,  M.  D.     Our  King  in  a  Dress  Coat.     North  Am.  Review,  Mar.  1887. 

Cooley,  Thomas  M.  The  General  Principles  of  Constitutional  Law  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  Boston,  1880. 

Curtis,  G.  T.  History  of  the  Origin,  Formation  and  Adoption  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  2  vols.  New  York,  1860. 

[219] 


22O  Veto  Power:  —  Bibliography.  APP.  F 

Curtis,  G.  T.     Life  of  James  Buchanan.     2  vols.     New  York,  1883. 

Davis,  Horace.  American  Constitutions.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies, 
Third  Series,  Nos.  ix-x.  Baltimore,  1885. 

Democratic  Review.    The  Veto  Power  (xxiv,  14;  xxviii,  243,  xxxvi,  35). 

Desty,  Robert.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  Notes.  San  Francisco, 
1887. 

Elliot,  Jonathan.  The  Debates  in  the  Several  State  Conventions  on  the  Adoption 
of  the  Federal  Constitution.  5  vols.  Washington,  1836. 

Freeman,  E.  A.     The  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution.     London,  1876. 

Hallam,  Henry.  Constitutional  History  of  England,  from  the  Accession  of  Henry 
VII.  to  the  Death  of  George  II.  3  vols.  New  York,  1869. 

Hamilton,  J.  C.  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton :  A  History  of  the  United  States  of 
America  as  traced  in  his  Writings  and  in  those  of  his  Contemporaries.  7  vols.  Boston, 
1879. 

Hart,  Albert  Bushnell.  The  Disposition  of  our  Public  Lands.  Quarterly  Jour- 
nal of  Economics,  Jan.  1887,  i,  169-183,  251-254. 

Hearn,  W.  E.  The  Government  of  England;  its  Structure  and  Development.  Lon- 
don, 1867. 

Hildreth,  Richard.  The  History  of  the  United  States  of  America  from  the  Dis- 
covery of  the  Continent  to  the  Organization  of  the  Government  under  the  Federal 
Constitution.  First  Series.  3  vols.  New  York,  1849. 

Howell,  T.  B.  A  complete  collection  of  State  Trials  and  Proceedings  for  High 
Treason  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  year  1783.  London,  1816. 

Jameson,  J.  A.  A  Treatise  on  Constitutional  Conventions;  their  History,  Powers, 
and  Modes  of  Proceeding.  Chicago,  1887. 

Jefferson,  Thomas.  The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  Edited  by  H.  A.  Wash- 
ington. 7  vols.  Washington,  1853. 

Johnston,  Alexander.     History  of  American  Politics.     New  York,  1886. 

Laughlin,  J.  Lawrence.  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  by  John  Stuart  Mill. 
New  York,  1885. 

Laughlin,  J.  Lawrence.  Influence  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  on  Legis- 
lation. Atlantic  Monthly,  Iv,  826. 

Lawrence,  W.  B.    Elements  of  International  Law,  by  Henry  Wheaton.   Boston,  1 863. 

Long,  John  D.  The  Use  and  Abuse  of  the  Veto  Power.  The  Forum,  Nov. 
1887,  iv,  No.  3. 

McPherson,  Edward.  The  Political  History  of  the  United  States  during  the  period 
of  Reconstruction.  Washington,  1871. 

Madison,  James.     Letters  and  Other  Writings.     4  vols.     Philadelphia,  1865. 

Madison,  James.  Papers  of  James  Madison,  being  his  Correspondence  and  Reports 
of  Debates.  3  vols.  Washington,  1840. 

Mason,  E.  C.     A  Defense  of  the  Veto  Power.     Forum,  July,  1890,  ix,  No.  5. 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society.  Proceedings  for  December,  1889,  and  Janu- 
ary, 1890. 

New  York.  Documents  relative  to  the  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  Procured  in 
Holland,  England,  and  France  by  J.  R.  Brodhead,  Agent.  Albany,  1856. 

National  Quarterly.     The  President's  Veto  in  1866  (xii,  296). 

Niles'  National  Register.    The  Veto  Power  (xxxviii,  371;  xlviii,  69). 

Parliamentary  or  Constitutional  History  of  England.  From  the  Earliest 
Times  to  the  Restoration  of  King  Charles  II.  London,  1 762. 

Parton,  James.     Life  of  Andrew  Jackson.     3  vols.     New  York,  1860. 


Bibliography.  221 

Pomeroy,  J.  W.  An  Introduction  to  the  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States. 
Boston  and  New  York,  1 888. 

Poore,  Ben  Perley.  The  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial  Charters,  and 
Other  Organic  Laws  of  the  United  States.  2  vols.  Washington,  1877. 

Quincy,  Josiah.     History  of  Harvard  University.     2  vols.     Cambridge,  1840. 

Salmon,  Lucy  M.  History  of  the  Appointing  Power  of  the  President.  Papers  of 
the  American  Historical  Association,  I,  No.  5. 

Sato,  Shosuki.  History  of  the  Land  Question  in  the  United  States.  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  P'ourth  Series,  Nos.  vii— viii-ix. 

Schouler,  James.  History  of  the  United  States  of  America  under  the  Constitution. 
4  vols.  Washington,  1880-1889. 

Story,  Joseph.  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  with  a 
preliminary  review  of  the  Constitutional  History  of  the  Colonies  and  States  before  the 
Adoption  of  the  Constitution.  3  vols.  Boston,  1833. 

Story,  William.  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story.  Edited  by  his  son  William 
Story.  2  vols.  Boston,  1851. 

Stubbs,  "William.  Select  Charters  and  Other  Illustrations  of  English  Constitutional 
History.  Oxford,  1876. 

Simmer,  W.  G.  Andrew  Jackson  as  a  Public  Man.  American  Statesman  Series. 
Boston,  1882. 

Tacitus.     De  Moribus  Germanise. 

Taswell-Langmead,  T.  P.  English  Constitutional  History  from  the  Teutonic  Con- 
quest to  the  Present  Time.  London  and  Boston,  1881. 

United  States.     Annals  of  Congress  (1789-1823). 

United  States.     Congressional  Debates  (1823-1837). 

United  States.     Congressional  Globe  (1833-1873). 

United  States.     Congressional  Record  (1873-1889). 

United  States.     Journals  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  (1789-1889). 

United  States.     Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States.     Washington,  1878. 

United  States.  Veto  Messages  of  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  with  the  action 
of  Congress  thereon.  Compiled  by  order  of  the  Senate  by  Ben  Perley  Poore,  clerk  of 
Printing  Records.  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  49  Cong.  2  sess.,  No.  53. 

United  States.  Views  of  the  Minority  of  the  Committee  on  Bills  S  465,  549,  739, 
809,  820,  838,  1237,  and  the  veto  messages  thereon.  Senate  Reports,  50  Cong.  I  sess., 
No.  1667. 

United  States.    The  Statutes  at  Large  of  the  United  States  (1789-1889). 

United  States.  Treaties  and  Conventions  concluded  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  other  Powers  since  July  4,  1776.  Washington,  1873.  . 

Von  Hoist,  H.  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United  States.  6  vols. 
Chicago,  1877-1889. 

Von  Hoist,  H.  The  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Chicago, 
1887. 

Von  Hoist,  H.     John  C.  Calhoun.     American  Statesman  Series.     Boston,  1882. 

Webster,  Daniel.     Works.    6  vols.     Boston,  1851. 

Williams,  Edwin.     The  Statesman's  Manual.     4  vols.    New  York,  1854. 

Wilson,  Henry.  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America. 
3  vols.  Boston,  1877. 


INDEX. 


ADAMS,  JOHN,  legislative  activity, 
214. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  legislative  activ- 
ity, 214;  report  on  revenue  act  of  1842, 
70. 

Alexandria,  establishment  of  church,  53, 
142  (No.  3). 

Allentown,  Pa.,  public  building  at,  105,  188 
(No.  294). 

American  colonies,  veto  in,  17. 

Anderson,  Mrs.  M.,  pension  to,  172  (No. 
184). 

Anderson,  Sarah  E.,  pension  to,  198  (No. 
368). 

Anne,  Queen,  last  English  veto,  16. 

Appropriations,  army,  47,  162  (No.  120); 
civil,  47,  163  (No.  122). 

Army,  reduction  of,  142  (No.  2) ;  medical 
officers  for,  108,  151  (No.  51);  bounties 
to  soldiers,  108,  155  (No.  75);  appro- 
priations, 47,  162  (No.  120). 

Arner,  Philip,  pension  to,  172  (No.  181). 

Arthur,  Chester  Alan,  Fitz-John  Por- 
ter, 43,  86;  Chinese,  58;  ocean  steam- 
ships, 94;  river  and  harbor,  104;  reasons 
for  vetoes,  127;  attempt  to  enlarge  the 
veto  power,  138;  list  of  vetoes,  164,  165; 
legislative  activity,  214. 

Articles  of  Confederation,  19. 

Ashville,  N.  C.,  public  building  at,  105,  179 
(No.  235). 

Ayers,  Edward,  pension  to,  166  (No.  141). 

BABERICK,  CATHERINE,   pension 

to,  204  (No.  413). 
Baker,  J.  W.,  relief  of  children  of,  85,  156 

(No.  80). 

Ball,  Farnaren,  pension  to,  189  (No.  306). 
Ballier,  John  F.,  pension  to,  194  (No.  340). 
Baney,  Tobias,  pension  to,  193  (No.  338). 


Bangham,  Mrs.  E.  C.,  pension  to,  167 
(No.  149). 

Bank  charter  vetoes,  32,  74;  Second  United 
States  Bank,  74,  143  (No.  7) ;  renewing 
charter,  75,  144  (No.  14) ;  Fiscal  Bank, 

76,  145   (No.  22);    Fiscal  Corporation, 

77,  145  (No.  23). 

Bank  notes  in  D.  C.,  79,  151  (No.  50). 

Bar  Harbor,  Me.,  public  building  at,  105, 
190  (No.  313). 

Barnes,  Mrs.  R.,  pension  to,  180  (No.  241). 

Barnes,  Rachel,  pension  to,  196  (No.  353). 

Barnes,  W.,  pension  to,  206  (No.  428). 

Bash,  Major  D.  N.,  relief  of,  186  (No.  282). 

Bass,  H.  V.,  pension  to,  206  (No.  429). 

Bayard,  James  A.,  on  second  reconsidera- 
tion of  veto,  121. 

Baylor,  J.  R.,  pension  to,  183  (No.  260). 

Beck,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  170  (No.  171). 

Beezeley,  Mrs.  L.  C.,  pension  to,  173  (No. 

195)- 

Belding,  H.  K.,  relief  of,  181  (No.  250). 
Bennett,  R.  K.,  pension  to,  182  (No.  254). 
Benton,  Jr.,  J.  H.,  reasons  for  veto,  1 14. 
Best,  J.  M.,  relief  of,  156  (No.  84). 
Bishop,  William,  pension  to,  91,  171  (No. 

177). 

Blazer,  Dolly,  pension  to,  191  (No.  319). 
Bloomer,  E.  J.,  pension  to,  1 60  (No.  104). 
Bodies  for  dissection,  60,  165  (No.  135). 
Boon,  Clark,  pension  to,  174  (No.  200). 
Boone,  W.,  pension  to,  175  (No.  209). 
Botts,  John   Minor,  influence   on  Tyler's 

veto,  77. 
Bradley,  Mrs.  S.'  A.,  pension  to,  178  (No. 

229). 
Bradshaw,  W.  S.,  pension   to,  201    (No. 

392). 

Branch,  D.  B.,  pension  to,  166  (No.  143). 
Brimmer,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  186  (No.  286). 


[223] 


224 


Veto  Power:  —  Index. 


Brock,  M.  W.,  relief  of,  159  (No.  101). 
Brokenshaw,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  186  (No. 

283). 

Brown,  Van  Buren,  relief  of,  193  (No.  335). 

Bryant,  J.  S.,  pension  to,  199  (No.  375). 

Buchanan,  James,  protest  against  Co- 
vode  investigation,  45,  208  (No.  4) ;  land 
grant,  62;  homesteads,  63;  internal  im- 
provements, 103,  1 06;  signing  constitu- 
tional amendments,  118;  reasons  for 
vetoes,  127;  list  of  vetoes,  149,  150; 
legislative  activity,  214. 

Bundy,  M.  L.,  pension  to,  175  (No.  210). 

Burlingame,  Anson,  Chinese  treaty,  58. 

Burnett,  John  D.,  appointment  to  office,  41. 

Burr,  Elizabeth,  pension  to,  19.  (No.  320). 

Burritt,  L.,  pension  to,  184  (No.  270). 

Burtch,  A.,  relief  of,  158  (No.  94). 

Burtram,  B.  A.,  pension  to,  197  (No.  365). 

Bussey,  Catherine,  pension   to,   199  (No. 

380. 

Butler,  J.,  pension  to,  171  (No.  175). 
Butterfield,   Mrs.   Anna,  pension  to,   195 

(No.  348). 

CALHOUN,  J.  C.,  on  adjournment  of 
Congress,  27;  on  internal  improvements, 

95- 

Campbell,  Jesse,  pension  to,  182  (No.  258). 
Campbell,  Jr.,  William  M.,  pension  to,  193 

(No.  333)- 

Carlin,  Bernard,  pension  to,  196  (No.  358). 
Carpenter,  W.  S.,  relief  of,  198  (No.  372). 
Carr,  Mary  A.,  pension  to,  202  (No.  404). 
Carroll,  Bridget,  pension  to,  204  (No.  415). 
Carroll,  J.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  222). 
Chamberlain,  C.  H.,  relief  of,  203  (No.  411). 
Champlain,  bridge  across  Lake,  109,  179 

(No.  236). 

Chandler,  J.  C.,  pension  to,  166  (No.  142). 
Charles  I.,  vetoes,  13,  16. 
Chase,  C.  A.,  pension  to,  174  (No.  202). 
Chase,  N.  D.,  pension  to,  193  (No.  336). 
China,  treaties  with,  58. 
Chinese  immigration,  58,  162  (No.  119); 

164  (No.  129). 
Clay,  Henry,  26;   on  right  of  the  speaker 

to  vote,  95;   on  pocket  vetoes,  113. 
Clayton,  27. 
Cleveland,  Orover,  removals  from  office, 


41;  Indians,  56,  57;  bodies  for  dissec- 
tion, 60;  Des  Moines  River  lands,  64, 
66;  Castle  Island  Park,  65;  land  grant 
to  Tacoma,  W.  T.,  65;  land  grant  to 
Kansas,  66;  Fort  Wallace  Reservation, 
66;  refunding  the  direct  tax,  73;  De- 
pendent Pension  Bill,  89;  pension  pol- 
icy, 90;  Springfield  a  port  of  delivery, 
94;  public  buildings,  105;  Texas  Seed 
Bill,  107;  Omaha  a  port  of  delivery, 
109;  bridge  across  Lake  Champlain,  109 ; 
United  States  map  for  1886,  no;  neg- 
lect of  reconsideration,  122;  bills  passed 
over  the  veto  in  one  house,  125;  rea- 
sons for  vetoes,  128,  130;  effect  on  par- 
ties, 131 ;  prevention  of  unwise  measures, 
132,  133;  indirect  influence  on  legisla- 
tion through  veto,  133  ;  list  of  vetoes, 
165-207;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Coleman,  William,  142  (No.  4). 

Collins,  Major  J.  C.,  relief  of,  163  (No. 
124). 

Columbia,  District  of,  29;  vetoes  affecting, 
59;  recording  in,  29,  159  (No.  loo); 
paving  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  59,  160 
(No.  107);  police  commissioners,  60, 
161  (No.  in). 

Columbus,  Ga.,  public  building  at,  105,  190 
(No.  312). 

Colwell,   George,   pension    to,    207    (No. 

432). 
Confederate   States  of  America,  veto  in, 

119,  125,  126,  130,  136;   chronological 

list  of  vetoes,  210-213. 
Congress,  Form,  25  ;  regulation  of  session, 

26,  30,  145  (No.  20). 
Connecticut,  17,  18. 

Connelly,  Julia,  pension  to,  173  (No.  193). 
Contractors,  relief  of,  155  (No.  77). 
Cooper,  Charles,  relief  of,  155  (No.  76). 
Cooper,  Harriet  E.,  pension  to,  193  (No. 

334). 
Corson,  Sarah  A.,  pension  to,  195   (No. 

350. 

Cotton,  J.  D.,  pension  to,  172  (No.  182). 
Council  Bluffs,  Iowa,  105,  190  (No.  314). 
Courts,  trials  in  district,  27,  142  (No.  5); 

new  trial  in  court  of  claims,  28,  157  (No. 

87);   special  term  in  Mississippi,  29,  162 

(No.  1 1 8). 


Brock  —  Godfrey. 


225 


Covode  investigation,  45,  208  (No.  4). 
Crawford,  R.  B.,  pension  to,  156  (No.  82). 
Cunningham,  Maria,  pension  to,  177  (No. 

224). 
Currency   and   coinage,    78;     inflation   of 

currency,  80, 158  (No.  92);  Bland  Silver 

Bill,  81,  162  (No.  117). 
Curtin,  Mary,  pension  to,  197  (No.  363). 
Cutler,  G.  W.,  pension  to,  180  (No.  245). 

DARLING,  J.  H.,  pension  to,  174  (No. 

201). 

Dauper,  John,  pension  to,  202  (No.  399). 
Davis,  Jefferson,  vetoes  as  president  of  the 

Confederate  States,  210-213. 
Davis- Wade  Bill,  208  (No.  5). 
Dayton,  O.,  public  building  at,  105,  179 

(No.  234). 

Dean,  John,  pension  to,  199  (No.  378). 
Debt,  refunding  the  national,  78,  164  (No. 

128). 
Deck,  Amanda  F.,  pension  to,  194  (No. 

339). 
De  Krafft,  Elizabeth  S.,  pension  to,  90,  170 

(No.  1 68). 

Denning,  F.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  220). 
Denniston,  W.  H.,  relief  of,  158  (No.  91). 
Denny,  Alfred,  pension  to,  170  (No.  170). 
Dependent  Pension  Bill,  89,  183  (No.  261). 
Dermody,  W.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  218). 
Des  Moines  River  lands,  settlers'  titles  to, 

64,  66,  165  (No.  134);   206  (No.  425). 
De  Witt,  Hannah  C,  186  (No.  284). 
Dickens,  W.,  pension  to,  181  (No.  248). 
Diplomatic  congratulations,  39,   161  (No* 

112). 

Doane,  R.  L.,  pension  to,  199  (No.  377). 
Dougherty,    Mary   Ann,   pension   to,   192 

(No.  330). 

Dow,  Mrs.  J.,  pension  to,  180  (No.  240). 
Drake,  Mary  I.,  pension  to,  204  (No.  412). 
Duluth,  public  building  at,  105,  178  (No. 

227). 
Dunlap,  Margaret,  pension   to,  181    (No. 

251). 
Dustin,  George  M.,  removal  from  office, 

41. 

EAST      TENNESSEE      UNIVER- 
SITY,  relief   of,    157    (No.    88). 


Eaton,  Lydia  A.,  pension   to,   202    (No. 

398). 

Edward  III,  13,  14. 

Edwards  &  Co.,  relief  of,  150  (No.  47). 
Elderkin,  D.  T.,  pension  to,  172  (No.  185). 
Eldridge,  Mrs.  R.,  pension    to,   167   (No. 

148). 
Elections,  testimony  in  contested,  28,  146 

(No.  27);   interference,  46,  note  3,  162 

(No.  121). 
England,  early  legislative  power,   12,  13; 

veto,  14;   disappearance  of  the  veto,  15. 
Errors,  correction  of  clerical,  109,  151  (No. 

52). 

Esty,  C.  J.,  pension  to,  205  (No.  424) . 
Evans,  Mrs.iF.  E.,  pension  to,   178   (No. 

228). 
Executive  departments,  advertising  of,  35, 

note  2,  161  (No.  115). 

FALCONER,  A.,  pension  to,  181  (No. 

252). 

Farris,  J.  W.,  pension  to,  169  (No.  165). 
Federal  Convention,  20. 
Fincher,  J.  D.,  pension  to,  184  (No.  267). 
Fitzmorris,  Mary,  relief  of,  193  (No.  337). 
Foley,  Bridget,  pension  to,  194  (No.  344). 
Forbes,  Duncan,  pension  to,  180  (No.  242). 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  18,  21. 
French  spoliation  claims,  83, 147  (No.  32) ; 

84,  148  (No.  36). 

GARCIA,  MANUEL,  pension  to,  195 
(No.  352). 

Garfield,  James  A.,  on  closing  consular 
offices,  38;  reasons  for  failure  to  veto, 
127. 

Garrett,  Eli,  pension  to,  205  (No.  419). 

Gaven,  Ester,  pension  to,  202  (No.  400). 

Geddes,  C.  W.,  relief  of,  204  (No.  414). 

Georgia,  State  of,  signing  bill  after  adjourn- 
ment of  Congress,  1 1 6. 

Germany,  early  legislative  power,  1 1. 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  Federal  Convention,  21. 

Gilmer,  Thomas  W.,  Revenue  Act  of  1842, 
70. 

Glamann,  Charles,  pension  to,  192  (No.. 
326). 

Glass,  Eliza  S.,  pension  to,  203  (No.  405). 

Godfrey,  E.  J.,  pension  to,  199  (No.  376). 


226 


Veto  Power:  —  Index. 


Goldsborough,  Robert  H.,  27. 

Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  Court  of  Clairrfe,  28; 
recording  in  District  of  Columbia,  29; 
advertising  of  executive  departments,  35, 
note  2;  consular  offices,  37;  Indians, 
55;  paving  in  District  of  Columbia,  59; 
police  commissioners  in  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, 60  ;  homestead  entries,  64  ; 
diplomatic  intercourse,  39;  President's 
salary,  45;  Inflation  Bill,  80 ;  internal  im- 
•  provements,  104,  note  2;  refusal  to  carry 
out  a  bill,  103;  bounties  to  soldiers,  108; 
protest,  blankets  for  reform  school,  109, 
209  (No.  9);  post-office  statutes,  109; 
right  to  recall  a  veto,  118;  neglect  of 
reconsideration,  122;  reasons  for  vetoes, 
128;  effect  on  parties,  131;  prevention 
of  unwise  measures,  132;  River  and 
Harbor  Bill,  104,  209  (No.  7);  Diplo- 
matic Bill,  37,  209  (No.  8)  ;  list  of 
vetoes,  155-162;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Griggs,  A.  P.,  pension  to,  182  (No.  256). 

Griswold,  Elisha,  relief  of,  190  (No.  311). 

Guyse,  G.  W.,  pension  to,  172  (No.  186). 

HAGBRMAN,  MRS.  M.  J.,  pension 

to,  1 80  (No.  239). 

Ham,  J.  D.,  pension  to,  166  (No.  144). 
Hamilton,  Alexander,  Federal  Convention, 

21;  the  veto  in  1789,  139. 
Hamilton,  D.  W.,  pension  to,  167  (No.  145). 
Hamilton,    Mrs.    Sarah,    pension   to,    185 

(No.  247). 
Hand,  Mrs.  Ellen,  pension   to,  205   (No. 

418). 
Hanks,   Dr.  John  F.,  relief  of  estate  of, 

156  (No.  78). 

Hannegan,  John,  relief  of,  155  (No.  76). 
Hannegan,  William,  relief  of,  155  (No.  76). 
Harbaugh,  Mrs.  S.,  pension  to,  174  (No. 

!97)- 

Harden,  S.  W.,  pension  to,  167  (No.  150). 
Hardy,  Lieut.  J.  G.  W.,  relief  of,  191  (No. 

324). 
Harkins,   Mary  F.,  pension  to,   191   (No. 

322). 

Harrington,  E.  M.,  pension  to,  178  (No. 
'    231). 
Harrison,  W.  H.,  reason  for  failure  to 

veto,  127. 


Hayes,  Rutherford  B.,  special  term  of 
court,  29;  riders,  46,  note  3,  47;  Chi- 
nese, 58;  refunding  the  national  debt, 
78;  Bland  Silver  Bill,  8i;  failure  to 
enter  veto  message  in  journal,  122; 
reasons  for  vetoes,  128;  prevention  of 
unwise  measures,  132,  133;  vetoes  which 
have  failed,  134;  attempt  to  enlarge  the 
veto  power,  137;  protest,  fees  of  United 
States  marshals,  209  (No.  10);  list  of 
vetoes,  162-164;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Hawes,  Susan,  pension  to,  180  (No.  246). 

Hawley,  G.  C,  pension  to,  173  (No.  188). 

Haworth,  J.  D.,  pension  to,  167  (No.  147). 

Heckler,  Elizabeth,  pension  to,  202  (No. 

4°3)- 

Heiny,  Lydia  A.,  pension  to,  196  (No.  356) . 

Hensley,  E.  P.,  pension  to,  170  (No.  166). 

Herbst,  Theresa,  pension  to,  194  (No.  343). 

Hester,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  188  (No.  301). 

Hiar,  R.  J.,  pension  to,  189  (No.  302). 

Hill,  A.  J.,  pension  to,  166  (No.  138).       ' 

Hill,  J.  A.,  relief  of,  158  (No.  97). 

Hinely,  Louis,  pension  to,  158  (No.  95). 

Hippie,  Jr.,  H.,  pension  to,  169  (No.  164). 

Hockaday,  relief  of,  150  (No.  49). 

Holman,  William  S.,  closing  consular  of- 
fices, 38. 

Holsey,  Robert,  pension  to,  171  (No.  176). 

Hopkins,  T.  S.,  pension  to,  168  (No.  156). 

Hooper,  Mary,  pension  to,  202  (No.  401). 

Houchin,  W.  M.,  pension  to,  194  (No. 
342). 

How,  John,  relief  of,  184  (No.  272). 

Hoxey,  Mary  M.,   pension   to,  191    (No. 

323). 

Hunter,  J.,  pension  to,  169  (No.  159). 
Hunter,  Mrs.  Maria,  pension  to,  174  (No. 

196). 
Hutchins,  Waldo,  attempt  to  enlarge  the 

veto  power,  138. 

ILLINOIS,  signing  bill  after  adjourn- 
ment of  Congress,  116. 

Indians,  54;  Cherokee  award,  55,  146 
(No.  28);  custody  of  trust  funds,  55, 
158  (No.  96);  sale  of  lands,  55,  160 
(No.  108);  56,  187  (No.  293);  right  of 
way  for  railroad,  57,  178  (No.  232) ;  194 
(No.  345)- 


GoldsborougJi  —  Leggit. 


227 


Indian  Territory,  57. 

Ingersoll,  Charles  J.,  Revenue  Act  of  1842, 
70. 

Internal  improvements,  general  view,  105; 
Bonus  Bill,  94,  143  (No.  8);  Cumber- 
land Road,  96,  143  (No.  9) ;  Maysville 
Road,  97,  143  (No.  10) ;  turnpike  stock, 
97,  143  (No.  n);  light-houses  and  bea- 
cons, 97,  144  (No.  12);  canal  stock, 
97,  144  (No.  13);  river  and  harbor, 
144  (No.  16);  Wabash  River,  97,  145 
(No.  18);  rivers  and  harbors,  99,  147 
(No.  29);  rivers  and  harbors,  100,  147 
(No.  31);  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  100, 
147  (No.  33);  completion  of  works, 
101,  148  (No.  35);  Mississippi  River, 
101,  148  (No.  38);  Saint  Clair  Flats, 
101,  149  (No.  39);  Saint  Mary's  River, 
101,  149  (No.  40) ;  Des  Moines  Rapids, 
101,  149  (No.  41);  Patapsco  River,  101, 

149  (No.  42);    Saint   Clair  Flats,  103, 

150  (No.  45);    Mississippi    River,  103, 
150  (No.  46);   appropriations  for  sala- 
ries,   103,    159   (No.    102);    rivers   and 
harbors,  104,  164  (No.  131);    104,  209 
(No.  7). 

Irwin,  J.  T.,  pension  to,  176  (No.  213). 

JACKSON,  ANDREW,  session  of 
Congress,  26,  30;  bank  veto,  32;  treaty 
with  the  Two  Sicilies,  36;  proceeds  of 
public  land  sales,  60;  interest  on  state 
claims,  73;  bank  veto,  75;  funds  receiv- 
able for  United  States  revenues,  79;  in- 
ternal improvements,  96,  106;  reasons 
for  vetoes,  127,  129;  effect  on  parties, 
131  ;  prevention  of  unwise  measures, 
1 33 ;  protest  against  censure  by  the 
Senate,  33,  208  (No.  i);  list  of  vetoes, 
143-145;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Jacoby,  Mrs.  M.  A.,  pension  to,  176  (No. 
215). 

James  I,  13. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  26;  reason  for  failure 
to  veto,  126;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Jenckes,  Thomas  A.,  tenure  of  office,  43. 

Jennings,  Nancy  F.,  pension  to,  188  (No. 
297). 

Johnson,  Andrew,  Tenure  of  Office  Act, 
42;  war  power,  44,  209  (No.  6);  recon- 


struction vetoes,  46;  negro,  57,  59;  pre- 
empting mineral  land,  64;  admission  of 
Colorado,  67, 68;  admission  of  Nebraska, 
67,  68;  duty  on  copper,  72;  bills  passed 
over  the  veto,  125  ;  effect  on  parties, 
131;  prevention  of  unwise  measures, 
132;  vetoes  which  have  failed,  134;  pro- 
test against  a  rider,  209  (No.  6) ;  list  of 
vetoes,  151-155;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Johnson,  J.  T.,  relief  of,  156  (No.  79). 

Jones,  G.  A.,  relief  of,  155  (No.  76). 

Jones,  Margaret  R.,  pension  to,  184  (No. 
268). 

Judiciary,  form  of  national,  27. 

Jussen,  Edmund,  relief  of,  157  (No.  86). 

K ABLER,  J.  E.,  pension  to,   197   (No. 

367). 
Kansas,  55,  56;  land  grant,  66,  200  (No. 

386) ;  sale  of  Fort  Wallace  reservation, 

66,  200  (No.  387). 
Karstetter,   Mary,   pension   to,    178    (No. 

226);   204  (No.  417). 
Kelley,  Daniel  H.,  relief  of,  86,  161   (Ncy- 

»3).  f     - 

Kelly,  Ellen,  pension  to,  202  (No.  402). 
Kent,  Joseph,  attempts  to  diminish  the  veto 

power,  136,  137. 
Kinney,    Mrs.   A.,  pension   to,    180    (No. 

243)- 
Kirkpatrick,  J.  S.,  pension  to,  175  (No. 

207). 
Kyler,  H.  L.,  pension  to,  176  (No.  212). 

LA  FAYETTE,  IND.,  public  building 

at,  105,  185  (No.  277). 
Lane,  Henry  S.,  Revenue  Act  of  1842,  71. 
Lang,  Mary  A.,  pension  to,  193  (No.  332). 
Langdon,  Hannah  R.,  pension  to,  186  (No. 

281). 

Lanham,  S.  W.  J.,  Texas  Seed  Bill,  108. 
Latham,  W.  S.,  pension  to,  202  (No.  397). 
Lawrence,  William,  closing  consular  offices, 

38. 
Leary,  John,  pension  to  the  widow  of,  197 

(No.  364). 
Leatherbury,  P.   A.,  relief  of,   195    (No. 

346). 

Leese,  F.  J:,  pension  to,  169  (No.  163). 
Leggit,  relief  of,  150  (No.  49). 


228 


Veto  Power:  —  Index. 


Leland,  Edward  A.,  relief  of,  162  (No. 
116). 

Lewis,  Edwin,  142  (No.  4). 

Lewis,  William  J.,  attempts  to  remove  the 
veto  power,  136. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  bank  notes  in  D.  C., 
79;  medical  officers  for  the  army,  108; 
clerical  errors,  109;  signing  bill  after 
adjournment  of  Congress,  115;  signing 
constitutional  amendments,  117;  neglect 
of  reconsideration,  122,  125;  pocket 
vetoes,  126;  reasons  for  vetoes,  127; 
prevention  of  unwise  measures,  132; 
manifesto  against  Davis-  Wade  Bill,  208 
(No.  5);  list  of  vetoes,  151;  legislative 
activity,  214. 

Liner,  Peter,  pension  to,  201  (No.  396). 

Lockrey,  J.  J.,  pension  to,  206  (No.  426). 

Loe  winger,  Johanna,  pension  to,  190  (No. 


Loomis,  A.  F.,  pension  to,  176  (No.  211). 
Lounsberry,  C.  A.,  relief  of,  198  (No.  373). 
Luce,  Mrs.  E.,  pension  to,  170  (No.  167). 
Luckett,  E.  H.,  relief  of,  159  (No.  98). 
Lutman,  D.  H.,  pension  to,  198  (No.  369). 
Lynch,  W.,  pension  to,  181  (No.  253). 
Lynn,  Mass.,  public  building  at,  105,  184 
(No.  273). 

McBLAIR,   J.  H.,  relief  of,   165   (No. 

133). 
McCaleb,  Sarah    E.,  relief  of,    189   (No. 

3°5)- 

McCarty,  Mrs.  C.,  pension  to,  178  (No. 
230). 

McCool,  John,  pension  to,  206  (No.  427). 

McCullah,  J.  A.,  relief  of,  157  (No.  89). 

Mcllwain,  Mrs.  M.,  pension  to,  174  (No. 
199). 

McKay,  E.,  pension  to,  176  (No.  217). 

McKay,  Nathaniel,  relief  of,  185  (No.  278). 

McRobertson,  A.,  pension  to,  184  (No. 
269). 

Maddox,  Laura  E.,  relief  of,  200  (No.  388). 

Madison,  James,  Federal  Convention, 
20,  21,  22;  appointing  judges,  28;  tenure 
of  office,  43;  church  and  state,  53,  54, 
60;  naturalization,  54,  59;  bank  veto, 
74  ;  internal  improvements,  94,  105  ; 
pocket  vetoes,  125;  reasons  for  vetoes, 


127,  129;    effect  on  parties,  131;    pre- 
vention of  unwise  measures,  132,  133; 

list  of  vetoes,   142,  143;    legislative  ac- 
tivity, 214. 
Mails,  subsidy  for  ocean,  148  (No.  37); 

overland,   35,   note    2;    149  (No.  43); 

post-office  statutes,  109,  160  (No.  105). 
Mansfield,  Betsey,  pension   to,   186  (No. 

280). 

Mantor,  M.  T.,  pension  to,  186  (No.  285). 
Maphet,  C.  T.,  pension  to,  199  (No.  379). 
Marchand,  Mrs.  M.  D.,  pension  to,  168 

(No.  155). 

Marion,  John  H.,  relief  of,  191  (No.  316). 
Marshals,  payment  of  United  States,  47, 

163  (Nos.  123, 125,  126);  46,  note  3;  164 

(No.  127).    * 

Martin,  Elijah,  relief  of,  191  (No.  318). 
Maryland,  17,  1 8. 
Massachusetts,  16,  18. 
Mead,  James  R.,  relief  of,  158  (No.  93). 
Melcher,  Louis,  pension  to,  166  (No.  140). 
Mertz,  Anna,  pension  to,  190  (No.  309). 
Miller,  Mrs.  M.  A.,  pension  to,  172  (No. 

183). 

Miller,  S.,  pension  to,  172  (No.  187). 
Mills,  Emily  G.,  relief  of,  187  (No.  292). 
Mims,  Samuel,  142  (No.  4). 
Mississippi,  land  grant  to  a  church  in,  54, 

142  (No.  4). 
Monroe,  James,  internal  improvements, 

95,    105  ;    reasons   for  veto,   127,  129; 

effect  on  parties,  131;    only  veto,  141; 

legislative  activity,  214. 
Monroe,  J.  D.,  pension  to,  169  (No.  162). 
Montana,   56;    right  of  way  for  railroad, 

57,  178  (No.  232). 
Montgomery,  M.  A.,  pension  to,  156  (No. 

S3)- 

Morehead,  A.,  pension  to,  176  (No.  216). 
Morhiser,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  184  (No. 

271). 

Morton,  J.  B.,  relief  of,  192  (No.  328). 
Myer,  Capt.  E.  S.,  restoration  of,  160  (No. 

106). 

NATURALIZATION,  54, 142  (No.  6). 
Nebraska,  55. 

Nevil,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  219). 
Newhard,  Jacob,  pension  to,  200  (No.  384). 


Leland —  Quiggle. 


229 


New  York,  State  of,  signing  bill  after  ad- 
journment of  Congress,  116. 

Norman,  Mrs.  M.,  pension  to,  175  (No. 
205). 

Nottage,  Mrs.  M.  J.,  pension  to,  170  (No. 
172). 

OBEKIAH,    B.,   pension   to,    181    (No. 

249). 
Omaha  a  port  of  delivery,  109,  165  (No. 

136). 
O'Neal,  Charlotte,  pension  to,  183  (No. 

263). 
O'Shea,  James,  pension  to,  92,  168  (No. 

153). 
Owen,  Mrs.  A.  C.,  pension  to,  167  (No. 

146). 
Owen,  Clara  M.,  pension  to,  205  (No. 

421). 

PARKER,    N.,    pension    to,    175    (No. 

208). 

Parker,  P.  E.,  relief  of,  197  (No.  366). 
Parsons,  Mrs.   M.,  pension  to,    171    (No. 

173). 

Passengers,  carriage  of  by  sea,  94,  164 
(No.  130). 

Pennsylvania,  18. 

Pension  vetoes,  87. 

Piatt,  Mrs.  T.  M.,  pension  to,  188  (No. 
296). 

Pierce,  Franklin,  land  grant,  6 1 ;  French 
spoliation  claims,  84;  internal  improve- 
ments, 101,  106;  what  constitutes  a  two- 
thirds  majority,  120;  second  reconsid- 
eration of  veto,  121;  bills  passed  over 
the  veto,  125;  reasons  for  vetoes,  127; 
list  of  vetoes,  147-149;  legislative  activ- 
ity, 214. 

Pierpont,  Rachel  Ann,  pension  to,  183 
(No.  265). 

Piggott,  Michael,  relief  of,  203  (No.  407). 

Pilcher,  J.  E.,  relief  of,  189  (No.  307). 

Pinckney,  Charles,  21. 

Pitner,  G.  W.,  pension  to,  196  (No.  355). 

Points,  A.,  pension  to,  180  (No.  244). 

Polk,  James  K.,  French  spoliation  claims, 
83;  internal  improvements,  100,  106; 
reasons  for  vetoes,  127;  list  of  vetoes, 
147;  legislative  activity,  214. 


Porter,  Fit/- John,  relief  of,  43,  86, 165  (No. 
132). 

Portsmouth,  O.,  public  building  at,  105,  185 
(No.  276). 

Potts,  Mrs.  Jane,  pension  to,  200  (No. 
382). 

President  of  the  United  States,  methods  of 
treating  a  bill,  24;  refusal  to  carry  out 
an  act,  1 1 6;  right  of  protest,  1 1 7 ;  sign- 
ing constitutional  amendments,  117; 
reduction  of  salary,  45,  159  (No.  99). 

Probert,  Mrs.  Anna  A.,  pension  to,  174 
(No.  198). 

Public  buildings,  Zanesville,  O.,  105,  169 
(No.  158);  Duluth,  Minn.,  105,  178 
(No.  227);  Dayton,  O.,  105,  179  (No. 
234)  ;  Asheville,  N.  C.,  105,  179  (No. 
235);  Springfield,  Mo.,  105,  179  (No. 
237);  Lynn,  Mass.,  105,  184  (No.  273); 
Portsmouth,  O.,  105,  185  (No.  276); 
La  Fayette,  Ind.,  105,  185  (No.  277); 
Allentown,  Pa.,  105,  188  (No.  294); 
Youngstown,  O.,  105,  189  (No.  308); 
Columbus,  Ga.,  105,  190  (No.  312); 
Bar  Harbor,  Me.,  105,  190  (No.  313); 
Council  Bluffs,  la.,  105,  190  (No.  314); 
Sioux  City,  la.,  105,  168  (No.  157); 
198  (No.  374). 

Public  lands,  60 ;  proceeds  of  land  sales 
(Clay's  Bill),  60,  144  (No.  17);  pro- 
ceeds of  land  sales,  61,  146  (No.  26); 
grant  to  indigent  insane,  61,  147  (No. 
34) ;  grants  for  agricultural  colleges,  62, 
149  (No.  44);  Homestead  Act,  63,  150 
(No.  48) ;  grant  to  Montana  Iron  Com- 
pany, 64,  152  (No.  56);  surveying  dis- 
trict of  Montana,  64,  152  (No.  58); 
homestead  entries,  64,  160  (No.  no); 
titles  to  Des  Moines  River  land,  64,  66, 
165  (No.  134);  206  (No.  425);  Castle 
Island,  Boston  Harbor,  65,  188  (No. 
298) ;  government  purchase  at  Council 
Bluffs,  105,  190  (No.  314);  grant  to 
Tacoma,  W.  T.,  65,  195  (No.  347) ;  grant 
to  Kansas,  66,  200  (No.  386);  sale  of 
Fort  Wallace  reservation,  66,  200  (No. 
387). 

QUIGGLE,  CHLOE,  pension  to,  187 
(No.  288). 


230 


Veto  Power:  —  Index. 


RAILROADS,  right  of  way  in  Montana, 
57,  178  (No.  232). 

Randall,  Sally  A.,  pension  to,  188  (No. 
300). 

Randolph,  Edmund,  Federal  Convention, 
20,  21. 

Reconstruction,  freedman's  bureau,  46,  151 
(No.  53);  civil  rights,  46,  57,  151  (No. 
54) ;  continuation  of  freedman's  bureau, 
46,  152  (No.  57);  suffrage  in  D.  C.,  46, 
152  (No.  59) ;  Tenure  of  Office  Act,  42, 
46,  152  (No.  62);  Reconstruction  Act, 
46,  153  (No.  63);  supplemental  Recon- 
struction Act,  46,  153  (Nos.  64,  65); 
joint  resolution  on  reconstruction,  46, 153 
(No.  66)  ;  amending  Judiciary  Act,  46, 
154  (No.  67);  exclusion  of  electoral 
votes,  46,  154  (No.  70);  discontinuance 
of  freedman's  bureau,  46,  154  (No.  71); 
trustees  of  colored  schools,  46,  155  (No. 

72). 
Reed,  Mrs.  Catherine,  pension  to,  200  (No. 

383). 

Reed,  John,  pension  to,  183  (No.  264). 
Relief  bills,  85. 
Religious  liberty,  53. 
Representatives,    apportionment    of,    142 

(No.   I). 
Revenue,  funds  receivable  for  United  States, 

79,  145  (No.  21);   cutters  and  steamers, 

35,  note  2;  147  (No.  30). 
Reynolds,  J.  W.,  pension  to,  198  (No.  371). 
Rhode  Island,  17,  18. 
Richards,  Mary  K.,  pension  to,  201   (No. 

390- 
Richardson,  A.  C.,  pension  to,  181   (No. 

247). 

Riddle,  W.  P.,  pension  to,  196  (No.  357). 
Riders,  army  appropriations,  47,  162  (No. 

120);   civil  appropriations,  47,  163  (No. 

122);     payment    of    marshals,  47,    163 

(Nos.  123,  125,  126). 
Robeson,  John,  pension  to,  201  (No.  395). 
Romahn,  M.,  pension  to,  167  (No.  151). 
Romiser,  J.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  22). 
Roosevelt,  James  I.,  Revenue  Act  of  1842, 

70. 

Ross,  D.  H.,  pension  to,  179  (No.  233). 
Rowland,  Alfred,  desertion   of,  161    (No. 

114). 


Rowley,  Jerome,  relief  of,  155  (No.  76). 
Rowley,  Mrs.  R.  V.,  pension  to,  176  (No. 

214). 
Ryan,  Abigail,  pension  to,  156  (No.  181). 

SACKMAN,  WILLIAM,  Sr.,  pen- 
sion to,  187  (No.  289). 

Sacs  and  Foxes,  55. 

Salt  works,  relief  for  owners  of,  157  (No. 
90). 

Sattler,  Catherine,   pension   to,   182  (No. 

259)- 

Saxberry,  Edson,  relief  of,  196  (No.  359). 
Scanland,  L.  W.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  223). 
Schenck,  Mrs.  C.  R.,  pension  to,  170  (No. 

169). 
Schenck,  Robert  C.,  duty  on  copper,  72; 

internal  improvements,  101. 
Schiedel,  Stephen,  pension  to,    191    (No. 

3I7)- 

Schuler,  Charles,  pension  to,  173  (No.  189). 
Schultz,  B.,  pension  to,  173  (No.  194). 
Scott,  C.  C.,  pension  to,  203  (No.  409). 
Seavey,  S.  A.,  pension  to,  195  (No.  350). 
Senate,  censure  of  the,  33,  208  (No.  i). 
Servis,  D.  A.,  pension  to,  190  (No.  310). 
Seward,  W.  H.,  second  reconsideration  of 

veto,  121. 

Sexton,  Ellen,  pension  to,  192  (No.  325). 
Seyfforth,   Caroline   G.,    pension    to,    196 

(No.  360). 
Shannon,  Thomas,  pension  to,   194   (No. 

340. 

Shea,  Ellen,  pension  to,  189  (No.  304). 

Sherman,  John,  reasons  for  vetoes,  130. 

Shong,  Michael,  pension  to,  205  (No.  423). 

Sioux  City,  la.,  public  building  at,  105, 
i68(No.  157);  198  (No.  374). 

Smith,  Abigail,  pension  to,  165  (No.  137). 

Smith,  Eliza,  pension  to,  195  (No.  349). 

Smith,  Jacob,  pension  to,  183  (No.  266). 

Smith,  Polly  H.,  pension  to,  192  (No.  329). 

Smith,  Virtue,  pension  to,  191  (No.  321). 

Snyder,  John,  requiring  names  of  appli- 
cants for  office,  41. 

Spencer,  Jacob,  relief  of,  158  (No.  93). 

Springfield,  Mass.,  a  port  of  delivery,  166 
(No.  I39). 

Springfield,  Mo.,  public  building  at,  105, 
1 79  (No.  237). 


Railroads —  Veto. 


231 


Stapleton,  R.  H.,  pension  to,  177  (No.  225). 

Starr,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  175  (No.  204). 

States,  the  veto  in,  113,  114,  118,  136; 
provisions  of  State  Constitutions,  215- 
218;  veto  in  first  State  Constitutions, 
18. 

States,  admission  of  Colorado,  67,  151 
(No.  55);  68,  152  (No.  60);  Nebraska, 
67,  68,  152  (No.  61);  Arkansas,  46,  154 
(No.  68);  Southern  States,  46,  154  (No. 
69). 

State  claims,  interest  on,  73,  144  (No.  15). 

Stevens,  A.  F.,  pension  to,  168  (No.  154). 

Steward,  J.,  pension  to,  171  (No.  178). 

Stewart,  William  M.,  second  reconsidera- 
tion of  veto,  121. 

Stillwell,  J.  M.,  pension  to,  200  (No.  385). 

Stone,  C,  pension  to,  182  (No.  257). 

Stridden,  Georgia  A.,  relief  of,  188  (No. 

295)- 

Stryker,  C.  G.,  pension  to,  189  (No.  303). 
Stuarts,  the,  14,  15. 

Sullivan,  Mary,  pension  to,  187  (No.  290). 
Sweet,  Franklin,  pension  to,  182  (No.  255). 

TARIFF,  69,  first  Whig  bill,  70,  146 
(Xo.  24) ;  second  Whig  bill,  70,  146 
(No.  25);  duty  on  copper,  72,  155  (No. 
73);  Tyler's  protest,  70,  208  (No.  3). 

Tax,  refunding   the   direct,  73,  207    (No. 

433)- 

Taylor,  John,  pension  to,  169  (No.  160). 

Taylor,  Zachary,  compromise  of  1850, 
57;  reasons  for  failure  to  veto,  127;  in- 
direct influence  on  legislation,  133. 

Tervin,  Richard,  142  (No.  4). 

Texas  Seed  Bill,  107,  183  (No.  262). 

Tiffany,  Nelson,  relief  of,  159  (No.  103). 

Tiller,  C.  W.,  pension  to,  169  (No.  161). 

Tillman,  H.,  pension  to,  175  (No.  203). 

Todd,  Margaret  B.,  pension  to,  198  (No. 

370). 
Travers,  Mrs.  A.  E.,  pension  to,  172  (Xo. 

180). 

Treaty  power,  invasion  of,  49. 
Triggs,  Julia,  relief  of,  205  (No.  420). 
Trumbull  Civil  Rights  Bill,  57. 
Tucker,  John  R.,  closing  consular  offices, 

38. 
Tudors,  the,  15. 


Turly,  John  A.,  relief  of  widow  of,  192  (No. 

327). 

Turner,  Major  J.  T.,  relief  of,  87,  160  (No. 
109). 

Tuttle,  J.,  pension  to,  175  (No.  206). 

Two  Sicilies,  treaty  with,  36,  145  (No.  19). 

Two-thirds  majority,  what  constitutes,  103, 
119. 

Tyler,  G.  B.,  relief  of,  159  (No.  98). 

Tyler,  John,  taking  testimony,  28 ;  names 
of  applicants  for  office,  40;  Cherokee 
Indians,  55;  proceeds  of  public  land 
sales,  61;  temporary  Revenue  Act,  70; 
permanent  Revenue  Act,  70;  bank  veto, 
76;  fiscal  corporation  veto,  77;  internal 
improvements,  99;  second  reconsidera- 
tion of  veto,  121;  bills  passed  over  the 
veto,  125;  reasons  for  vetoes,  127;  effect 
on  parties,  131;  prevention  of  unwise 
measures,  133;  refusal  to  furnish  infor- 
mation, 40,  208  (No.  2) ;  protest  against 
committee  report  on  tariff  veto,  70,  208 
(No.  3);  list  of  vetoes,  145-147;  leg- 
islative activity,  214. 

UNITED  STATES,  additional  copies 
of  map,  no,  197  (No.  362). 

VAN  BUREN,  MARTIN,  reason  for 
failure  to  veto,  126. 

Van  Etten,  Mrs.  M.  A.,  pension  to,  171 
(No.  179). 

Vest,  George  G.,  reasons  for  vetoes,  130. 

Veto,  the,  a  legislative  power,  112;  pocket 
vetoes,  113;  reasons  for  veto,  114;  sign- 
ing bill  after  adjournment  of  Congress, 
115;  signing  constitutional  amendments, 
117;  right  to  recall  a  veto,.n8;  right 
of  the  speaker  to  vote  on  reconsideration, 
120;  second  reconsideration  of  veto, 
1 20;  failure  to  enter  veto  message  in 
journal,  122;  neglect  of  reconsideration, 
122;  reasons  for  vetoes,  126;  constitu- 
tionality and  expediency,  129;  effect  on 
parties,  131;  prevention  of  unwise  meas- 
ures, 132;  indirect  influence  on  legisla- 
tion, 134;  vetoes  which  have  failed, 
134;  popular  objections  to  the  veto, 
135;  attempts  to  alter  the  power,  136, 
137;  the  veto  in  1789  and  in  1889,  138. 


232 


Veto  Power  :  —  Index. 


Virgin!^,  17. 

Vogelsang,  Mrs.  Sophia,  pension  to,  2OI 
(No.  394). 

WALLACE,  T.  B.,  relief  of,  157  (No. 
85). 

Wallen,  George,  pension  to,  204  (No.  416). 

Walsh,  Thomas,  pension  to,  203  (No.  408). 

Walster,  Charles,  pension  to,  199  (No.  380). 

Walter,  Squire,  pension  to,  206  (No.  431). 

Ward,  Sallie  T.,  pension  to,  196^0.354). 

Warner,  E.  W.,  pension  to,  206  (No.  430). 

War  powers,  108;  Johnson's  protest  against 
the  removal  of  power  from  the  President, 
44,  209  (No.  6). 

Washington,  George,  apportionment, 
25,  30;  reduction  of  the  army,  108; 
reasons  for  vetoes,  127,  129,  130;  pre- 
vention of  unwise  measures,  132;  list  of 
vetoes,  142;  legislative  activity,  214. 

Weaver,  W.  H.,  pension  to,  179  (No.  238). 

Webster,  D.,  26;   tenure  of  office,  43. 

Welch,  Mrs.  H.,  pension  to,  171  (No.  174). 

Welch,  Julia,  pension  to,  193  (No.  331). 

West,  C,  pension  to,  173' (No.  192). 

Wheaton,  Laban,  church  and  state,  54. 

Wheaton,  W.  R.,  relief  of,  203  (No.  411). 

White,  J.  C.,  pension  to,  197  (No.  361). 

White,  Rollin,  relief  of,  155  (No.  74) 


Wilbur,  J.  E.,  relief  of,  201  (No.  390). 

Williams,  J.  S.,  pension  to,  168  (No.  152). 

Wilson,  A.  J.,  pension  to,  173  (No.  191). 

Wilson,  C.  B.,  relief  of,  203  (No.  406). 

Wilson,  H.  B.,  relief  of,  187  (No.  291). 

Wilson,  James,  22. 

Wilson,  Joseph,  142  (No.  4). 

Witt,  William   P.,  pension   to,   187   (No. 

287). 
Woodbridge,   Sarah   A.,  pension   to,    200 

(No.  389). 
Woodson,   Mrs.    M.   S.,    pension   to,    173 

(No.  190). 
Woodworth,  Mary,  pension  to,  201    (No. 

393)- 
Worcester,  F.  D.,  pension   to,  205    (No. 

422). 

Worden,  L.  J.,  relief  of,  188  (No.  299). 
Wright,  Anna,  pension  to,  185  (No.  275). 
Wright,    Laura  A.,  perision  to,  185  (No. 

279). 

YAMGHEIM,   E.  J.,  pension  to,  203 

(No.  410). 
Youngstown,  O.,  public  building  at,  105, 

189  (No.  308). 

ZANESVILLE,  O.,  public  building  at, 
105,  169  (No.  158). 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  priod  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC'D  IP 


orn 


?  077 -77  AM — T 


LD21A-60m-8,'70 
(N8837sl  0 )  476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


v'   *'' 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(B139s22)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


